 Good morning, and welcome to the 12th meeting in 2017 of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. I would ask you all to put your mobile phones on silent and no apologies have been received. Agenda item 1 is a declaration of interest and I welcome our newest member, Fulton MacGregor, to the committee. In accordance with section 3 of the Code of Conduct, I would ask him to declare any interest relevant to the committee's remit? Thanks, convener. No interest to declare. Thank you very much. Item 2 is to take a decision on taking business in private. The committee has asked to decide to consider the budget review process interim report, which is agenda item 6. I would like to do this in private. Has everyone agreed? We agreed. On agenda item 3, we are moving now to take evidence on the implications on the outcome of the EU referendum for Scotland in relation to agriculture, forestry and fisheries. Before I welcome the panel that is here, I would like to ask if there are any members of the committee who would like to make a declaration of interest relating to agriculture or forestry. Peter. Yes, convener. I declare an interest in an agricultural business in the northeast and refer members to my register. Stuart. I have a very small registered agricultural holding from which I derive no income. Thank you. And I would like to declare an interest that I am a partner in a farming business, and I refer full details of my interest in the register of interests. So I would like to welcome, if I may, Fergus Ewing, the Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Connectivity, and Mike Russell, the Minister for UK Negotiations on Scotland's Place in Europe. The ministers are joined by David Barnes, the director of agriculture and environment, Alan Gibb, the head of the Sea Fisheries Division, and Jonathan Taylor, the head of secretariat and communications at the Forestry Commission. I believe that, Mike Russell, you are going to start with an opening statement, and I would ask if possible that you keep it to within two minutes or as close as possible to that. That is the second warning that I have had from you, convener. I shall pay attention to it. Thank you for the invitation. We are both grateful to have the opportunity to discuss the UK's departure from the EU in relation specifically to agriculture, forestry and fisheries. We followed the committee's work on the impacts of Brexit, but events are moving very fast, and they do not require me to tell you that today. As a result, I think that most of the information will come to you in questioning. If I may make two points. Firstly, this is a crucial time. Scotland did not vote to leave the EU, but recognising that the rest of the UK voted differently, the Scottish Government has put forward a compromise proposal in this document, Scotland's Place in Europe, with which I am sure you are familiar. Those proposals were a genuine compromise. They were designed to square the circle by addressing Scotland's interests and particularly our interests in remaining in the single market while enabling the UK Government to respect the referendum result elsewhere in the UK. Last month, unfortunately, the UK Government rejected that compromise, whilst the Scottish Parliament voted in favour of the First Minister's proposals that the people of Scotland would be given a choice about their future. That means that the Scottish Government is working to deliver the right to choose that the Parliament approved, but at the same time, we must, as the First Minister said, continue to stand up for Scotland's interests during the process of Brexit negotiations. The interests that the committee represents are, of course, very significant, both in terms of the devolved settlement, in terms of European competence, and in terms of its impact on Scotland. I am very happy to talk in more detail about all those issues during questions. Fogus, do you want to make an opening statement? Yes, good morning, everybody, and thank you for that, convener. In the event of Brexit, the Scottish Government has made it clear what we see is the key issues, and I welcome the opportunity to run over in a bit of detail what those are. Firstly, CAP funding is a hugely significant issue between 2014 and 2020. Scotland will receive 4.6 billion euros, around £400 million sterling per annum, from the EU across the two pillars of the CAP. That is hugely important to rural Scotland. Whilst the UK has given some limited assurance, which is welcome as far as it goes, it does not really apply to post-Brexit at all. There are questions, convener, about funding, but no answers. That is despite active engagement by myself and Ms Cunningham on these matters. On trade, we have made clear that single market access is essential for agriculture, food and aquaculture. It is absolutely essential. Seafood is far more important for Scotland than the rest of the UK, even though farmed salmon is the UK's second and on occasion top food export, yet the UK Government will not share its list of priority countries for trade agreements with us. Our salmon industry has made clear the importance of the single market for the future of its business, the importance of free movement of goods and of people, and it has highlighted non-tariff barriers as an area of significant concern. Around 8,000 people are employed in the food and drink sector, our non-UK EU nationals and our soft fruit and vegetable sectors employ up to 15,000 non-UK seasonal workers each year for harvest in summer and autumn. No one knows with certainty what the future position of these absolutely essential workers are. Again, questions, no answers. Finally, there is the issue of repatriation of powers. Fishing and agriculture are devolved, and our position is that all the powers should come to this Parliament. That has been pursued by myself, by Michael Russell, by Rosanna Cunningham. Questions have been put, but again, convener, no answers. I am persevering with this process of meetings, and I will be in London tomorrow unless, of course, the meeting is unilaterally cancelled by the UK Government, as it has been in the past. I will seek, on behalf of the Government, the answers as well as the questions, and we will take it from there. There are 12 themes that we would like to explore during today's meeting, and the first one is going to be introduced by Stuart McMillan. I want to talk about relationships with other Administrations in these islands and the UK on the common cause of getting the best outcome. In particular, where agriculture is concerned, the Minister for Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity referred to knowing the financial support up to 2020 but not post Brexit. I wonder whether, in relation to the history that we have had in matters such as convergence payments that have not been distributed on agricultural needs, whether there are any particular areas of common cause and work to ensure that agriculture, which is disproportionately important in Scotland compared to the rest of the UK, will continue to get the proportion of the level of support? Is that something that has been worked on with Wales, Northern Ireland and, indeed, with the dependencies for that matter as well? Are there interests in England that are affected by poor decisions that could be made in this area? How is it going? That is a long question. I know that the convener is hoping for comparatively short answers and probably shorter questions. We have sought to engage very constructively with the UK, so have our counterparts in Wales and Northern Ireland. There has been a group that has met twice on 8 November, last year and 23 February this year. The DEFRA Secretary of State cancelled the meeting schedule for 26 January against the wishes of the devolved ministers. We have pursued the meetings positively and constructively, but, sadly, there has simply been no information, convener—no information whatsoever on anything. That is unfortunate, but that is the reality. The second question is about convergence and perhaps a brief explanation that the EU provided essentially a fund to assist to convergence by moving together the real rates of return for farmers across the EU. The UK only qualified for this money because of Scotland. If it had not been for Scotland, the UK would have received zero. Instead, because and only because of the fact that the rate per hectare in Scotland is way, way below the EU average, the UK was entitled to convergence funding. That funding was in the region of £190 million. My predecessor argued that, because that money came to the UK because of Scotland and only because of Scotland, that that money should be received for the benefit of the farmers in Scotland who receive per hectare far, far lower than our friends down south or in other parts of the UK. That, convener, sadly is not what happened. This Parliament has debated in the previous session of this matter before, and my predecessor sought and obtained an agreement from the UK Government for a review that would be carried out into this matter. Mr Paterson, I believe, and Paterson, the former cabinet secretary, agreed to a review. However, that review has not been carried out. That was a pledge that, without being political about it, some play has not yet been fulfilled. Therefore, when I became cabinet secretary, I pursued this matter by seeking a discussion with my counterpart Andrea Ledgson. I had a meeting in this very room last autumn and she undertook to look at the issue and revert to us thereon. We are waiting for a substantive response. This is hugely important because this is £190 million and that money should have come to Scotland. It is not an EU issue, but it is between Scotland and the UK. Therefore, I hope that all members of this Parliament will agree that Scotland should receive—Scotland's farmers should receive—the benefit of this funding, which is specifically designed to tackle the lowest, I think, in the EU hectare-age rate of return on average. That is what the money was for and what it should be used for. It has not been used for that purpose and, believe you and me, that will be pursued over the coming weeks. My other question, which is quite brief and probably can generate quite a brief answer, given that Scotland and the convergence issue illustrates this, gets far greater than a population share of support for agriculture. Is there an opportunity for common cause with the other jurisdictions on the issue to make sure that our share of support for agriculture is preserved broadly? Or are there indications that this is not a message that is neither being heard nor responded to? I am an optimist by nature and therefore I am working positively to procure what Andrea Ledson promised, namely a sensible reason discussion and perhaps a solution. That is what I want. I am interested in practical results, convener, and that, therefore, is what I am doing. This is a good opportunity to report to Parliament for what I have been doing. I hope that all members will support our efforts in this regard. We also work with our colleagues in Wales and Northern Ireland very closely. Scotland's per hectare-age rate was only 45 per cent of the EU average. England, Wales and Northern Ireland were all above the 90 per cent threshold set by the commission. The purpose of the convergence fund was that the EU said that all countries receiving less than 90 per cent of the EU average should close the gap by one-third by 2019. Therefore, on the face of it, convener, I have the details here that I will undertake to write to the committee with the full details, the full facts. I will not labour the argument by going over them now, but this is a crystal clear case of money coming to Scotland where the UK Government promised something, where they have not delivered it yet, and I do think that people should deliver their promise. Cabinet Secretary, we will take you up on your offer, and I think that we can leave that there. If I could ask just on a matter of etiquette, Mike had signalled that he wanted to come in on that, and I was going to take him first. If I may, if you both look at me and I will indicate which way to go, Mike. I just wanted to make a point that seems raised about working together on agricultural issues. Although the GMCEN has not had the opportunity to discuss agricultural issues in detail, largely because there has not been an opportunity to resolve the issue of how the agricultural issues and the frameworks might be devolved, and that has only begun to emerge now through the white paper that the UK Government has brought forward. We have identified in Wales and with part of the previous Northern Ireland executive common interests in agricultural issues as major matters that would require to be discussed during the negotiations in GMCEN. That committee has been deeply unsatisfactory, but members from the devolved Administrations have made common cause on a range of issues in agriculture, fisheries, forestry and a number of others have been identified as key areas for the next phase, that is, a post-article 50 phase. I think that we are going to move on to the next scene. If you would like to start us on that, please. Yes. Can I ask what work has been carried out to assess the impact of CAP, whether positive or negative, looking forward to what we might be looking at for the future? Is there any work being taken place? We obviously carry out a number of methods of assessing the impact of CAP across a variety of ways. CAP provides a number of forms of payment. Particularly important for Scotland is the support that it provides for sheep and beef farming. It does so in a number of ways through various other schemes. It is important to evaluate the success of our policies, and we regularly use independent experts to do it. We have also established the Russell Griggs group to look at how we can support profitable farming whilst meeting our environmental commitments. We are all aware that farmers' primary role is to produce food for the nation and food security is moving up the agenda, if I may say so. It is also fair to say that farmers and crofters are the custodians of the countryside. If we did not have hill farming, what would the land look like? I am sure that members of the committee, yourself and others, will be very well aware of the huge role that farmers play as custodians of the environment. Perhaps that is something that we do not pay sufficient heed to and we need to evaluate a bit more. There are a number of other methods to answer the question, such as auditing of independent assessment. I hope that the answer that I have given is sufficient, so I will just leave it there. At this stage, is there anything coming forward from that that would indicate that you would maybe want to carry that forward into a Scottish support programme in the future, or, indeed, if there are parts of cap that you would not want to include? Yes. We do believe very strongly that we need to continue to provide a means of supporting the high-quality farming for food that operates in Scotland. We are a high-quality food producer and we will remain so. We will not compete at the lowest cost, lowest quality nor should we. Therefore, it is important that, whatever the future may hold, we continue to provide support for the high-quality farming in Scotland. That includes beef, sheep, poultry, pig, soft fruit, potatoes across, frankly, the realm. We need to recognise that that needs to be supported to a greater or lesser extent. I think that the particular areas of support are sheep and beef farming from hill farming. Perhaps I could just say as a point of information that, as members will know, we have announced a decision to proceed with the 80 per cent elfast parachute option for next year. However, we have also asked the UK Government for 219 that we should seek support then because that would possibly be post Brexit if that goes ahead in order to maintain support in principle for elfast. Elfast is essential for Scotland. We cannot do without it. We have been asking Ms Ledson, in particular, for her support in recognising that we must maintain hill farming in Scotland. Without elfast, we cannot do that. I have asked for clarification from the UK Government to accept in principle that that is agreed. I hope that, at the meeting, I will have tomorrow, if Ms Ledson is appearing at it, that she will answer in the affirmative. Peter Murdoff wants to follow up. Maybe I can bring Peter and then come back to you if I may read up, you know. Thanks, convener. Cabinet Secretary, you have made much of the difficulty between negotiations in this place and in Westminster, but I would like to hear what you have done in this Parliament to address the issues. We have had several months, 10 months now, since we have made a decision to come out. I would like to think that there has been much work being done in this place to find a way forward. We all recognise that there are difficulties ahead, but there are also opportunities ahead. One of the main opportunities is to design a system more suited to Scottish agriculture than what we have had to live with with the cap in the past. I am here in nothing that has been done in this place to try and address the issues going forward. That is not correct. There are numerous things that we have done, by myself and my predecessor. For example, the vision document that set out the future of Scottish farming was brought forward in June last year. We have also appointed four champions, Henry Graham, Archie Gibson, Mary McCormack and John Canair. They are working very hard in important areas of education, food and drink, public value and sustainability. We have appointed the Russell Griggs Group to look forward to identify ways in which we can have sustainable, profitable farming but also respecting the environment. Let me go back to the initial premise of the question, convener. Mr Chapman asked me that you have made much about the negotiations with Westminster. They have not been any negotiations. Negotiations are when you have a discussion starting off with an offer, a counter-proposal, a dialogue, a commercial agreement. I have spent a lot of my life and business doing that. There has been no negotiation, because the UK Government has not been willing to enter into any negotiations on convergence. I do not, with respect, convener. I will just finish at this point. I accept the premise of the question. Mr Ewing, I think that the question was trying to identify the areas of my understanding and, certainly, the understanding of the question from Rheda was what areas of the current system that you would like to keep and take forward in the future for agriculture. I think that that is what farmers and what this committee are looking for you to give an answer on. Rather than making a critique, are there some areas that you could give us that we should be looking at as the future for farming post 2020, as far as subsidies is concerned? I think that Mr Chapman asked what work we were doing. I have just described some of the work that we are doing, the vision document. I will share that with you, although it is in the public domain, convener, if you have not seen it. We have appointed four champions who are looking specifically at key areas. Those four champions are very respected leaders and experts in rural life. That is why we chose them. I think that it is very important to use the experience and the willing assistance and aid of experts outwith this place. That is why Henry Graham, the national chair of Lantra, Archie Gibson, the chair of the Scottish Food and Drink Federation, Mary McCormack, the buying director of Aldi's and John Canair, the former president of the NFU and chair of the Royal Scottish Agricultural Benevolent Institute. What better way to shape future ideas and thinking and policy than to engage and involve the farming community leading rural representatives? That is what we are doing. We also held various events. I have held various summits on rural life, two on forestry, one on shellfish, one on procurement, one on farming and food, one on food and drink. We have also heard discussion groups, and so has Rosanna Cunning with NGOs and with representatives of the farming and rural communities in Scotland. Therefore, we have been involved in a huge amount of work. We are also, and Mr Rumbles, I expect, will raise this, have agreed to Parliament that we should form a group of experts, and we are close to coming to a decision on that in the next few weeks. However, there is a final point that I would make, and that is that if you are running a business convener, as you have done, as I have done, you need a budget. If you do not have a budget, you cannot really run a business. You cannot make a plan. At the moment, because, as I intimated in my opening remarks, there are questions but no answers from the UK Government about funding, which is a reserved UK Government issue. It is not possible for us to come up with a detailed plan about what might replace the CAP and the pillar 1 and pillar 2 funding. I hope that that is a fairly obvious, sensible point that everyone will accept. I appreciate you pointing out that I know the importance of a budget, and I also appreciate the importance of cash flow on time. I am going to take Mike on the future of agricultural policy, because I think that he wants to develop that theme a bit. Thank you very much, convener. The cabinet secretary is absolutely correct. Back in January, in a full debate in the chamber, the cabinet minister accepted an amendment to establish a review group to develop options for agricultural support beyond 2020. That is what we are particularly interested in in the committee post 2020. What is the Scottish Government's policy agenda for this, if it has a free hand to develop a bespoke policy for Scotland? In an answer on 29 March to me, Fergus Ewing said that the Scottish Government is currently working up proposals for an external group to provide advice on future agricultural support to fit in with the expertise that the minister has just mentioned from Archie Gibson, Henry Graham, John Canaid and Marion McCormack. I understand entirely the point that the minister is making about which comes first, the budget or the policy development that you want to see for Scotland. What I am trying to say is that we can part the money side for a moment, because, as the minister said, we just do not know what is going to happen there. Can we just focus on what the cabinet secretary thinks are his priorities for developing agricultural policy, a bespoke policy for Scotland, and how he is getting on with, he just said, hopefully, in a few weeks' time, is he working to get this group of experts together and how that is coming along? Basically, it is the policy agenda for the future rather than the money. That is a very fair question. I think that Mr Rumbles is right in his formulation. There are three broad groups that I feel can play an important part. I have mentioned the champions, I have mentioned the Russell Griggs group, and that group will play an extremely important role. The third group is a group of experts on farming and the rural economy, and that is required in order to provide us with advice. However, it is very easy to enunciate a set of principles around which I hope that we can all agree that Scottish agriculture is more heavily reliant than the rest of the UK on cap, by the extent of 100 per cent. In other words, it is twice as important to put it very simply than for the UK pro-rata. That funding is hugely important. 16 per cent of cap comes to Scotland on barnatised formula, that would be 8 per cent or 9 per cent. There are high stakes here, and I think that the funding is something that we cannot overlook. We could park the car, but we need the car to get to the office. However, addressing the rest of the question and moving on from that, we need particular support schemes, as I have said, for hill farming and for the livestock sector, specifically beef and sheep production. I am proud of the high-quality beef and lamb, and the farmers do a terrific job producing high-quality products. Quality Meat Scotland does a great job in marketing, but the financial support of some sort needs to be there to continue that. Otherwise, imports, perhaps with no tariff barriers from New Zealand or from Argentina, will simply swamp the market and render our products potentially uncompetitive, so we cannot ignore the importance of markets access to markets, access to single market and the potential of tariffs, which, for all our food produce, could have very serious consequences. We cannot ignore that. We also recognise that cap funding is vital for the Scottish forestry sector, especially for the grants for new woodland creation, but woodland management and research are an area in which we work closely with the UK, for example. Cap is also the primary vehicle for agri-environment schemes, and a replacement for that would be essential in the event of Brexit. We are working hard on that. We have more work to do. We have been seeking a better deal within cap for new entrants, given the average age of a farmer. I think that it is just south of 60, which is not very good statistic. There are lots of policy objectives and imperatives that I hope we can all agree should be part of a new policy. However, to formulate a precise policy, I think that it requires more detail on money, on markets and on labour. Sadly, we do not have that at the moment. The last thing that I was saying is that this is important. I entirely agree with Commissioner Hogan that the current CAP scheme has a penalty regime, which often, sadly, results in very serious consequences for farmers and crofters for relatively minor clerical or inadvertent errors in the completion of the agricultural forms. Many of us who have been around this place for a long time have had tragic cases of elderly farmers making a simple mistake in the form of leading to a loss of income, sometimes their whole year's income, for a clerical error. Commissioner Hogan, I am sure that you know, is working on reforming that, and that is good. I would certainly recommend that, in the event of a new policy being required if Brexit were to go ahead, we would have to have a regime that treats people fairly and does not punish them for clerical mistakes. I want to bring in Mike Russell, if I may, and then I will come back to you, Mike, and then Peter, and then back to Rhoda, if I may. I just wanted to make one point, convener, about the context of this. Fergus Ewing is absolutely right to say that the development of the policy will be undertaken, of course, by him and by people who work with him. However, where the negotiation is, it is far distant from that moment. It is very important that people realise where that actually is. There are probably four possible outcomes. One is a continuation of devolved policy making, as exists now, building to a fully independent policy. Another one is a transition process, which could be of any length and time. Another one is the development of a UK framework, which is anticipated in the White Paper and in the Prime Minister's Mansion, but whether that is a framework in which decisions are made by the United Kingdom or whether there is an element of co-decision, as in Europe at the moment, we do not know what the preference would be on that. In addition, and this is like playing three-dimensional chess inside a Rubik's Cube, because then you have got the issues of freedom of movement, whether there will be a continuing flow of labour or not, whether leaving on WTO terms would be and would be very harmful to agriculture. It is possible to have a blue sky vision of a policy, but the ways in which this can be as likely to be constrained are many and varied. The UK Government has not yet brought to the table a single proposal that outlines these. Indeed, from the discussions that we have had, it is unlikely that that will be part of the discussion, possibly even in this calendar year, given the nature of the negotiations that are were about to start and now will be delayed by at least another month to six weeks. Mike, can you go? Particularly helpful. I mean, this is the nib of what I am trying to get at. We are assuming, and perhaps you could correct me if I am wrong, but we are assuming that the Government's preferred option would be to maintain the 17 per cent level of UK farm support that we get. If it is the preferred option that we keep the 17 per cent there, we then should have a plan should we not of how best we want a bespoke system in Scotland. I am assuming that that is what the Scottish Government wants, but I have not heard that. It would be very helpful if the committee heard that to say that that is particularly what the Scottish Government's preferred scheme would be. Can I just make a point about that? I do not have any great differences, I do not think that the cabinet secretary's great differences are what Mike Rumbles is saying, but the constraints on that preferred scheme are so great that it is not possible to focus on the principles that are very important to some of the people playing a role in that. The moment that you introduced, for example, the issue of freedom of movement, you have a whole enormous issue that will influence greatly some of the issues in that. Money is also crucial, so accepting that it is not in your gift, Mr Rumbles, but where it is 17 per cent in your gift, that would be a good start. Of course, there is no such commitment under history of negotiation in taking money for devolved powers and having that money devolved has always been that the Treasury tries to deliver less than the policy costs. That has been the experience, it is the experience of social security at the moment. If I may, I am not trying to be critically, but I have a proactive approach rather than a reactive approach. I think that the cabinet secretary has indicated that proactive approach. I am simply being boringly pedantic in terms of saying that there are such a huge range of qualifications that that has to be borne in mind as well. Just before we cut bringing in, I would like to try and bring in Peter, because I think that his question is linked to that, and maybe you could answer the two at the same time. Well, I understand the constraints. Negotiations have to take place, but that does not stop the two ministers who are sitting here today in front of us to convey to us what they would like to see Scottish agriculture look like in the future. I am hearing no vision about how we should look at the future of Scottish agriculture. No, I am not hearing a vision about how we should be looking at Scottish agriculture. You have told me what is going on behind the scenes, but surely you can illustrate some of the pluses that could come out of that Brexit negotiation rather than telling us all the negative stuff. That is all we have heard, it has all been negative, negative, negative. There are opportunities here. Let us hear what they are. I certainly will let you make it briefly, but I feel that Fergus should come in after you. Can I just make the point about the positives? I would be happy to hear those positives from Mr Chapman or anybody else, and I have been open to do so. I have to say that my inbox is not full of people who have positives, because every time they come with a positive, it is possible to show far from being a positive that it turns out to be a poison chalice. If he has positives, I am happy to hear them. Fergus, would you like to come back on both? I will certainly try to do so. I do not think that Mr Chapman's point was a question, but I have outlined that I passionately believe that Scottish farming produces high-quality food and that our farmers and our crofters are those who have shaped and sculpted the landscape for generations. That allows us to be attractive as a country for visitors. It allows us to have some of the most beautiful scenery in the world. It has not happened by accident. It is because of the work that it does. That should continue. That is, I think, a vision that I have. It is to use our natural assets to their best advantage, protecting the crown jewels and having a thriving, vibrant, rural economy. That, I think, is a vision that it is to me at any rate. It is for others to judge whether that vision is one that Scotland should follow. Regarding Mr Rumble's point, I take the view that, if the UK Government were to confirm that the funding that comes to Scotland, that has come to Scotland, that I outlined in my opening statement of €4.6 billion over 14 to 20, were to be matched and replicated for the further period of, say, five years, that would allow us then to have some serious planning and discussion. In other words, my challenge to you and my request and my ask tomorrow to the UK Government will please confirm that you will at least match the funding from Europe. After all, that is what Andrea Leadsam and George Eustis said prior to the Brexit vote. In fact, I have respect for the work that Mr Eustis has done in some areas, and I will get on perfectly well with him on a personal basis and with Ms Leadsam, but he did say that the funding will be at least matched, and then he added, without a shadow of a doubt. All I am asking, convener, is that the UK Government do, after Brexit, what they promised to do before the Brexit vote. I am sure that they will hear your message loud and clear tomorrow. I would like to and probably listening to the committee read it, if you would like to come in on that. I think that there are two issues, and both have gone into the issues about negotiations with the UK Government, but I think that we are keen to see what the Scottish Government are doing going forward. You have outlined some of that. I think that my concern is that how experts and specialists are being set up. We all know that farming and crofting involves very small businesses, and people who do not engage with conferences are like, how is the Scottish Government going out to them and learning from them what they require from a scheme going forward? We do so in a number of ways, reaching out to to engage with small business. Across the whole portfolios, the small business bonus provides the most generous rates relief in the UK, and over 100,000 businesses receive it and pay no or low business rates. Having run a small business, that financial assistance is probably the most concrete and most advantageous of any measure that I can think to assist small business in the UK. However, on specifically in relation to rural economy, we haven't touched on the digital process, but we are. Even though digital under chapter C of schedule 5 of the Scotland Act is plainly a reserved function, we couldn't hang around for the UK Government to invest, so we came up with a £400 million to contracts in order to invest in broadband to help small businesses. Sorry, Mr Ying, sorry. I don't mean to be difficult, but there are a lot of themes that we want to develop. Broadband wasn't specifically recognised, and people realised that the Government has made a commitment to broadband, and I'm sure that it's appreciative when it's delivered. If I could ask you to stick specifically to that, I know that your colleague might want to come in on the back of what you're saying. Perhaps if you could just tighten the answer and then I'll come to Mike. I think that the question was quite an omnibus question. What could we do to help small business in rural Scotland? I can tell you, convener, I get emails almost every day about that, so I didn't want to omit to come back on that, but I'm happy to hear it from the board. I apologise. I've obviously not been clear. What I'm saying is that farmers and crofters are small businesses that don't engage in conferences and with expert working groups and the like. How are you reaching out to them, crofters and farmers, especially the small ones that do the hill farming? How are you reaching out to them to get them involved in formulating the policy for intervention going forward? Again, by a variety of ways. I'm working with MPs and MSPs who are reaching out to them all and then engaging with myself. I met Mr Carson yesterday about a fishing interest, for example. We do work to some extent as a team, I suppose, but to answer the question specifically, let me just give you some specific examples of how I have reached out to the smaller crofter farmer. I attended, as did Mr Russell in different days, in Apple Cross, the Scottish Crofting Federation annual conference, and a very good event it was too. I think that there was a Q&A session that lasted for about an hour and it was very positive. I think that three weeks ago I attended a hill farming summit with my colleague Eileen Campbell in Lanark. Almost all of the attendees were small farmers, individual hill farmers, almost all, and some in the supply business of fertilizer contracting fencing. In a month or so, I shall be holding a second hill farming summit in Dingwall after the lambing season is over and will be engaging with them. It is also important that I should credit the role of the local arped offices throughout the country, 17 in total, if I am not mistaken, who are day and daily engaging and communicating with farmers and crofters. Much of that is fed back to me because I am in regular contact with the local offices and indeed I have visited over half of them. I think that Ms Grant has raised a very important point. Indeed, if there are other ways in which she or members think that the Government should reach out and work with the small business unit in the farming and crofting world as a result of this meeting, I would gladly consider any such recommendation. I remind everyone that so far we have dealt with three themes and we are 45 minutes into the session. We have another eight to go, so brief answers and brief questions would be appreciated so that we can get through all the business. I want to point out in relation to that question one of the roles that I have is to work with my colleagues to meet with ranges of people right across Scotland. I take it very seriously. I accompanied Fergus to a number of those meetings. I have also held events and meetings myself. I also take it very seriously within my constituency. I tend to take the Miss Marple approach. If you know what is happening in your own patch, you can understand things more widely. As a result of which, I have held regular meetings with Fergus that has been with me on Eila. I have held meetings right across Ireland but to understand what is happening there and what people want. In addition, what people might want from a new system of agricultural support, which tends out to look rather like the existing system of agricultural support, I have to say, but there we are. I am going to move on to the next theme, John Tee. It has been briefly touched on by the cabinet secretary. This theme is about regulation and standards. I will maybe just roll a number of questions into one there, please. Our crofting and farmers are subject to EU legislation and regulation and indeed some international regulation. There are differing views on the significance of that legislation. It would not surprise anyone that I would align myself with Mr Ritchie of Scottish Environment Link when he says that better regulation drives efficiency. We do not believe that regulation equals red tape. Quite the contrary. Cabinet secretary, you touched on earlier a more humane regime of regulation. Can you outline how that would dovetail with maintaining the high standards that I presume that we would all want to see in the agriculture and food sector and how it would be used to monitor and enforce standards to demonstrate to the market the high-quality products that Scotland produces? Yes, thank you. I think that Mr Finlay sets out the case very well that high standards remain vital if we are to compete in home and international markets. One of the things that I found from engagement with the leading figures in the farming community was just how important those high standards are as a means of continuing to rely on access to markets. For example, producers the provenance of our seed potatoes is dependent upon compliance with regulations of a very high standard to counteract the risk of disease, for example. Therefore, only by meeting those high EU standards are our seed potatoes able to access markets first of the EU. In other words, compliance with standards is a sort of entry card to markets and it is also a barrier if you do not have them, you are barred from markets. Appropriate regulation should not be seen as a foal but a friend and enabler. Where we to go down the route of some ultra-brexit ears that get rid of all the red tape, then there would not be many friends in the farming world who rely on high market equally with our quality beef and sheep and our regulation of our abattoirs. Those are very, very high standards and rightly so. Where we to depart from that in a sort of free market way, then I think that the commercial results would be devastatingly bad. High standards do need regulatory frameworks, animal health and welfare, as Mr Finnie well knows, as well as protection against disease. We do not have to think back too far to remember the ravages caused to communities and individuals, as well as economic cost by Footh and Mouth. The best outcome would be to continue to remain a member of the EU. Were that to be the case, then those high standards would be a given. I accept your final comment and it would be my party's position. However, where the UK to come out of the EU, do I understand you to say that to continue training we would need to maintain those standards and others as well? There is a view that this provides an opportunity to burn a lot of regulatory information and we move on to a bright new future. That is not how you see it. I think that there is an opportunity to get rid of some of what is often termed and described by Farmer's School plating—an overzealous interpretation of the rules. That is one of the reasons why Professor Griggs is looking with a group that includes farmers, NGOs and a wide variety of experts on this important issue, so that we get a Scottish approach that ensures profitability but also environmental sustainability. If it is a prerequisite to trade with the EU, is there been any discussions or will there be any contact between Professor Briggs and the EU on the workstream that they are undertaking? Yes, there will be. It is also one of the questions that I asked, but I have not yet obtained an answer from Ms Leeson, was that if the event of Brexit the UK would be a foreign country to the EU, a third country. That then means that there would be on paper the requirement of inspection points on the EU mainland. Therefore, any export of food or fish produce would have to be checked at inspection points. How many points there would have to be? Who would pay for them? Who would run them? What delay? What costs would arise to exporters? Those are all questions that we have asked, but sadly we have not had answers from the UK Government. Those are all regulatory matters, too. The issue of regulation is a concerning one, because the assumption made that there are a vast number of regulations that can simply be abandoned is an unsafe assumption. Logically, safety drives many of the regulatory regimes, but there is another issue here that needs to be understood. There will essentially be, in many things, two big blocks of regulation, US and EU. If you are not in either of those, then, for many global manufacturers and for many global traders, you go down the pecking order, because they are not going to spend a lot of time and effort trying to please a much smaller regulatory system until they have already pleased the two big regulatory systems. Far from it being something that frees up to allow people to be more active, sometimes, for example, in pharmaceuticals, the opposite will be the case, that the priority of your market will decline if you are not in either of those blocks. That is a big worry for many people. Fergus is absolutely right in terms of trading. If you cannot meet the requirements laid down, for example, by the EU, you will not be able to trade within that block. There are huge difficulties in simply saying, let's get rid of a bonfire of regulation. That safety base is there for a purpose, that is there for other reasons and is part of the block. If you do not observe it, you do not get in. Thank you. If we can move on to the next theme, which is that Gail is going to introduce. Good morning. It is about integrated land-use policy. We spoke about it in the last session that we had, and Stuart Goodall from Comfor is putting forward a suggestion about a country-side policy rather than a common agricultural policy. I wonder what your thoughts are on that. We are very much attuned to the proposal that there should be a sort of integrated land-use policy reflecting that rural Scotland's economy comprises a range of activities, not only farming, farming being the lead but also forestry and fishing and also field sports and, as you know, convener fishing and angling. It encompasses a comprehensive range. We did publish a land-use strategy in 2.11. The latest version of our strategy covers periods from 16 to 21 and aims to encourage an integrated approach to land use. I think that there is a desire among stakeholders to build on that work. For example, one practical piece of work that we are doing at the moment is to encourage more work between farming and forestry, sheep and trees project, and I am due to meet the NSA to discuss this further. Whereas in the past, perhaps there has been a view among some hill farmers that forestry is seen as a bit of a challenge, something that is seen as a competition that, increasingly, rather than an either-or approach that the two are seen as cumulative, a large hill farm could sustain a plantation on part of the land. Indeed, the Forestry Commission is doing excellent work to encourage some farmers to think about plantations. An integrated approach is very sensible. It has been part of the approach that the Scottish Government has taken for many years. I will actually be meeting with Confor this evening and some of the members where we may discuss this further. Thank you very much. I think that we are going to move on now from agriculture to more questions on fisheries. John, you are going to start us off on that, please. Yes, thank you, convener. The common fisheries policy seems to be loved and loathed in different circles. We have had it suggested by some people that there is nothing good in the common fisheries policy and it should just be walked away from. It seems also that it has been contributed to the fact that we still have fish in the sea and they have not all been taken away. Can you give us any outline as to what parts of the common fisheries policy you feel we should keep and carry on with and which parts we can walk away from? The common fisheries policy has caused enormous problems for Scottish fishermen and it has been compounded by the fact that we believe profoundly that Scotland not having a direct voice in the EU has hindered our ability to prevent the worst excesses of the CFP over the decades. That said, there are aspects of the CFP that would be sensible to retain. For example, the types and specifications of fishing gear that may be used and which are subject of regulation and there is a role for that. At a higher level, there is a guiding principle that fisheries should be sustainable and that there should not be overfishing. If there is overfishing, of course, everybody is the loser. Sustainability requires there to be a system of setting of quotas in line, convener, with scientific advice. The relatively brief period that I have been Cabinet Secretary engaging with Mr Gibbon in particular, but also with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, inshore fisheries groups and a whole range of stakeholders in fishing is that there is an acceptance that scientific advice is a role to play. I think that maybe in some time ago there would be a huge skepticism about the advice, but I think now there is a better alignment between the scientists and the fishermen and a realisation that they need to work together. I think that there are some things that we would wish to retain. The other thing that we would wish to retain, of course, is access to markets. The EU is a hugely important market for our fish, massively important, particularly to Shetland, as I learned in my recent visit there. The ability of people from the EU to work in our fish processing factories—many of them that I have visited are pretty much dependent on people who have come from EU countries, many of whom may now be living in Scotland, but many of whom feel a wee bit uncertain about whether they will have a long-term future here. The last point that I would make, convener, at a high level is that the EU has been the supplier of a great deal of financial assistance in order to, if you like, build the capacity of our fishing effort. The financial aid under the MFF and other sources to ports and harbours, to upgrading the facilities at our ports and harbours—Peter Head and Fraserborough—and around the country, as well as to processors and other individual businesses, has been immensely important. Over £77 million was provided under the European funding scheme to over 1,200 projects in the fishing, processing and aquaculture sectors safeguarding around 8,000 jobs. There is a question about what would replace that source of funding, which is not as well known as the CFP but, nonetheless, plays a hugely important role, as I have seen from visits around our ports and harbours in particular. The cabinet secretary mentioned markets, and I was particularly interested in that, because we did have evidence from some of the fishing groups, especially at the high end of the market, that they are not so worried about a few pence or pounds on a tariff, but they are more worried about getting the fish through the borders quite quickly. If there is delays in getting fish into France or Spain or wherever it might be, that would be the big worry for them. Can you give us any reassurances? Is that a priority for you in negotiations? It is something that I will be raising tomorrow at my meeting with Mr Eustace. Just to give you an idea of the figures, the seafood exports were £601 million, an account for 78 per cent of seafood exports in 2016, and the EU market, the single market, access to that market is hugely important. Whether there to be delays at inspection points or whatever they may be called, particularly for fish, the any time period of delay would be a big disadvantage and a serious place in jeopardy, continued access to those markets, simply on practical grounds. I was going to bring in Mike there, because he indicated that he wanted to come in and say, Mike, if you come in and then I'll let you in. I was going to say that this is an issue that concerns bodies such as the Chamber of Shipping, the British Ports Association, whom I've met with in the role that I was referring to in meeting a wide range of organisations. Perishable goods and particularly fish are probably at most risk, but so is the issue of just-in-time manufacturing. I have to say that, at the present moment, there is no clarity about how that system will be dealt with in terms of tariffs. We have, of course, no tariff barriers at the moment. The moment you put tariffs in, of any description, then you require inspection of or declaration of goods. If that takes place, then there are issues in terms of delay. There are issues also in terms of piling up lorries that you are familiar with, the images of the motorway in Kent with lorries all the way down it. That is because there is no sizeable marshalling area now in any of the major ports that can deal with tariff goods in that way. So there are considerable issues to be addressed, and not much time to address them. This is one of the big issues for transition. It would not be possible to put in that type of system after two years. You would require five to ten years to be able to develop that system. John, do you want to come back? Is that part of John's question was the things that you would like to keep? Could you give me one, just for my information, one item that you would like to lose that is part of the common fisheries policy at the moment? The most problematic area of the CFP at the moment is the way in which the landing obligation is being implemented. Obviously, the purpose is to prevent discards, to prevent throwing fish over the side of boats, and that is a repellent practice. If we agree that it should come to an end. In order to deliver a practicable result, there has to be a system that does not result in fishing vessels having to be tied up in February. You would not expect marks and expenses to shut in February a year, would you? It will then remain shut for the rest of the year. I think that this matter is an area where I felt that greater flexibility is required, and it is the subject of on-going discussion in the EU commission. I think that I was in attendance at the EU commission discussions in November, and then, of course, with Mr Gibbon, the December negotiations. I think that we achieved a remarkable outcome in those negotiations, not least because of the expertise and experience of Mr Gibbon's colleagues and the respect with which they are held in their peers in Europe. However, we are up against a stumbling block of a regulation that was overly prescriptive. I think that many fishermen would be happy to see that go or be changed into a more manageable. However, it is a problem that has to be dealt with, because nobody wants to see a recurrence of the practices that we have seen in the past of dumping a good fish over the side, being entirely wasted. It is not an easy problem, but I think that there needs to be far more flexibility in finding a solution to it. On that very point, would it be worth considering changing from a coder system to a days at sea system to regulate the fishing, the amount of fish that is taken to go down a different route entirely? I think that some system of ensuring that fishing stocks are not overfished and exhausted is the principal key. I am no expert in how that has achieved. There are different schools and different strategies that can be pursued. I do not know if Mr Gibbon would be able to provide, since he is here, and he knows far more about those things than I do. I am sure that he could give a more rounded answer if he has the opportunity, convener. I am sure that it is quite popular in the press at the moment that there is a day at sea option. There are other options such as credits for the type of fish and extra credits if we catch our cessation as a by-catch. I emphasise that they are very complicated in the mixed fishes of the North Sea. For example, you have to look at your weakest stock of your international responsibilities and sustainability. You cannot just go out and have an unlimited fishing number of days or a fixed number of days, because you have to understand the mixture of your catch and avoidance techniques. A days at sea only solution is unlikely to fit the mixed fisheries that we have in the North Sea in the west of Scotland. I want to talk about two issues related to the exclusive economic zone—access for our vessels to the waters to 200 miles and enforcement of rights in the waters. The committee has heard both at the SPICE breakfast meeting and in our own deliberations that we have the right to irrigate to ourselves the waters out to 200 miles, although we might choose not to do so. Interestingly, it is not a new issue. I discovered old SNP policy papers from 1974 that talk about the issue. The bottom line is that either cabinet secretary or minister will be able to tell us whether, in the light of what the UK has said in its white paper, where it is saying that it is a mutually beneficial result for fishermen in the EU and the UK. What they understand from that? Have there been any indications of what they understand from that? And how does that support the SFF's position, which I support, that we must first have exclusive control before negotiating how we use that exclusive control? Significantly, the Prime Minister's Lancaster house speech and the white paper referred to fisheries only in those terms and only in terms of essentially trading away access to waters. Now, this is, I think, for many, eerily familiar of what took place in the 1970s during accession, and certainly I have heard nothing different from that in the negotiation discussion to date. Fisheries has been referred to in the JMC process not as a specific subject but as an illustration of subjects that will require to be dealt with in the detail of the European negotiations, but on the basis of recognising, for example, historic rights that exist elsewhere, and that was also subject of some media coverage yesterday. If I were a member of the SFF, I would not be confident that the UK Government is either listening to or has heard the points that have been made. I want to come back from that. Yes, just briefly, Mr Stevenson has raised this matter before here and in the chamber of Parliament. I have raised this question on several occasions, both with George Eustace and with Andrea Leadsam. The specific question that I have asked is for a guarantee that the UK Government will not bargain away Scotland's fishing interests in its Brexit negotiations. I have received no answer to that question. The second part of my question, because I think that that is quite clear where we stand, if not where others stand, is enforcement. Working on the basis that we have responsibility for how fishing is conducted out to the 200-mile limit, what challenges are there in getting that new responsibility that we might have to respond to? I think that questions about enforcement involve technical aspects. I'd be very grateful if Mr Gibb would be able to assist the committee. We currently, under the devolved fisheries management arrangements, already monitor the Scottish fishing zone out to 200 miles. Our marine Scotland patrol vessels and marine Scotland aircraft are already very active, monitoring not only Scottish and UK vessels, but 11 non-Scotland nationalities that are fishing in the Scottish zone. We are well versed in that. The enforcement burden will increase because we need to make sure that people who had access to our waters had access legitimately and negotiated, so there would be an increased burden of that. I think that there is no doubt. It would be also fair to say that we will be relying on vessel monitoring satellite systems and electronic log books, which are two additional elements of the current CFP that we would probably look to keep very technical, but that allows for collective and remote monitoring of activity in new waters and in other member states of waters as well. John, you've now got some questions on a slightly different area. On the system, the theme is about ecosystems approach to fisheries management. In part, it's been touched on, I think, by our cabinet secretary. Just as there's been calls for an integrated rural or countryside policy, we heard from, in a previous meeting from Calum Duncan of the Marine Conservation Society, calling for effectively the retention of a regionalised ecosystem approach to the management of fisheries. There's a lot of background to it. I'll be brief on that. That includes the protection of crucial fish habitats, for example breeding and spawning grounds. How do you respond to calls for a sustainable ecosystem-based approach linking fisheries to marine protection areas and special areas of conservation? Would Brexit facilitate that more readily? What impact would future arrangements have on the ability to have that system? We have adopted the Scottish National Marine Plan in 2015, which promotes the approach that Mr Finnie is raising by putting the marine environment at the heart of the planning process. I share responsibilities on those issues with Rosanna Cunningham and, of course, Marine Scotland are to the fore in taking that work forward. A sustainable ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management should be taken in accordance with those principles. It is also seen as an asset by many of sectors of our fishing, for example shellfish, as sectors reliant on the image and the reality that we have a clean marine environment from which our high-quality shellfish products enjoy a provenance and a receptability in the marketplace. We are taking that approach at the moment. The second question was how would Brexit allow improvements in this area? I think that the only difference that Brexit would make is to change the process for offshore fisheries measures from an EU member state negotiation process to a national legislative one. Broadly speaking, the impression I get is that the EU is in favour of the ecosystem approach. Indeed, much of the environmental legislation is EU legislation. Fulton, you are now going to ask about the next subject. Yes, thanks, convener. It is an issue that both Mike and Ferdigus have already raised. How does the Scottish Government respond to some of the stakeholders' concerns that the committee has heard about the possible restrictions of EU labour in those sectors? What would be the Scottish Government's response to deal with that? Perhaps just to combine and make it one question in the interests of time, specifically in areas such as vets and research. If I could ask you, it is a huge subject, I understand that, but if you could keep it as tight as possible. We laid out proposals in Scotland's place in Europe with regard to freedom of movement, specifically to the four freedoms, but of which freedom of movement is one of the more important ones for Scotland. In the food sector, about 8,000 EU nationals are employed, about 15,000 in the non-seasonal market. There is a big dependency in agriculture on labour from the EU. 60 per cent of the workforce in the abattoir sector comes from outside Scotland, largely from EU nationals. There will be big pressures on the labour force. There is no obvious place from where those people can come to be replaced. There is also pressure in the tourism sector, in the finance sector, in the innovation sector—25 per cent of staff in the EU—in the research sector, for example, comes from other EU countries. We are very dependent on labour coming into Scotland. We have essentially no information from the UK Government about how they would replace the present system. Rather interestingly, some of the press speculation that we can about what was called the barista visas is giving young people a visa for two years, which was raised by the Home Secretary, which would not give young people any rights in terms of continued residence or in terms of support from the state, but would allow young people to work here for a couple of years, may be one of the solutions. That is rather interesting, because what it tells you is that there is a problem in leaving the EU, and a sticking plaster solution will be required to solve some of those problems. In Scotland, you will not be able to use a sticking plaster solution for agricultural labour and for agricultural work. If you put in place a sectoral approach, which has existed before, you will have very considerable difficulties in administering that. For example, I think that the committee has heard from Angus growers about the difficulties that existed in terms of soft fruit and the fact that the solution there may be not to do anything about labour coming from Romania and Bulgaria, but to move the bushes to Romania and Bulgaria and to move the entire industry out of Scotland. The reality of that is that there will be a very considerable pressure right across the Scottish economy, particularly in a rural economy, and presently there are no proposals to solve it. It is at various levels. The issue that you make of vets is very interesting. The professional level of that will probably be the hardest part to solve, because there will perhaps be some alternatives—a small number of alternatives for some labour. There won't be any for professional services. Indeed, in the health service, many doctors and nurses are very fed up with being treated as bargaining counters and are already leaving. A number of nurses coming in is dropping quite dramatically. That is a problem that we look to the UK Government to say how we are going to bring forward a solution for migration. There is presently no policy options as a result of which there is no solution, and we are two years away from leaving. It is another area where there will also have to be some transitional arrangements, which, of course, is very difficult for those people who believe very strongly in Brexit, because Brexit is about controlling access. If you are not going to do that, some might argue what is the point? That is a very full answer, cabinet secretary. Unless there is anything specific that you want to add, I would quite like to move on to the next theme, if I may. A few points. There are around 181,000 non-UK nationals living in Scotland, and rural Scotland is particularly vulnerable to the loss of any of those people who have chosen to come to Scotland. In particular, our leading agrifood and environment research institutes in Scotland have attracted talent from many EU countries, so any threat to that would be a very serious one to the continuing success and the research excellence of our institutes. Jamie, can I ask you to lead off on the next one, please? Can I ask the ministers here today if they think that any new or enhanced trading opportunities or relationships will arise from, as a result of the UK's exit of the European Union? If yes, what do you think those opportunities might be or where they might lie? If not, why not? I still have to see any evidence of those trading opportunities presented to me. There is sometimes much as made, for example, of India and the fact that we might be able to sell more whisky to India as a result of that, so it is not clear why that would be the case. In reality, of course, the Prime Minister went to India last October, endeavouring to get trade deals and failed. She failed because, by and large, the Indian Government wished to establish a relationship based on migration, particularly about younger and talented migrants who want to come to this country. Very often, internationally, there is a trade-off. Migration is a trade-off for increased trade. Something has been made of the old Commonwealth countries, so there is no evidence of that. Indeed, the Australian foreign secretary has talked about using Ireland as a route into the single market and prefering investment in Ireland. Of course, the real example of that lies in Germany. Germany is far more successful in international trade than the UK. Germany is a full and central member of the EU, and there is no intention of leaving. It is not constrained in any way. I see no evidence of constraint upon trade that membership of the EU brings. My own view is that the cost and difficulty of this process of withdrawal is far in advance of any advantage that might be seen. I have always said that, if people will bring me evidence that this is greatly to our advantage, I will be happy to look at it so far. I think that eight months into this job, nobody has done so, but I am always ready for it if Mr Greene has some here today. If I may clarify that this was a question to you, not a question to myself, do you think that there are any trading opportunities outside of the EU that may arise as a result of exit to the EU? I have just answered that question. The answer is no, but I am willing in the spirit of trying to work with people, which I believe that I should do. I am willing to hear examples if they are brought to me by anybody. Do you want to add to that at all or not? What I was going to say was that I do not think that there are any additional opportunities to those that already exist. There already are huge efforts by entrepreneurial people in our food and fish sectors to export throughout the world. Indeed, they are well helped by bodies such as Scottish Development International, which have engaged the services of a number of individuals to assist the further exports. However, membership of the EU is not an impediment to accessing that additional trade. It is, if anything, an advantage because it is a badge of compliance with the high standards and it is part of the European single market. I find it very difficult to. Mr Greene is very welcome to give us some examples to give us a little bit of help in this question, but I am as baffled and perplexed as Mr Russell. On the other hand, there is nothing at all uncertain about the risks. A switch to the default WTO tariff arrangements could lead to EU tariffs averaging between 7 and 11 per cent being imposed on Scottish shellfish, pelagic and whitefish exports, and tariffs of up to 13 per cent being imposed on Scottish smoked salmon exports, hence the concerns of the aquaculture sector to which I alluded in my opening remarks. The risks, I am afraid, are all too stark and crystal clear. The opportunities opaque and as yet unidentified. I have to say that as Liam Fox himself has pointed out, the opportunities for world trade are presently diminishing, not increasing. With a prediction as to United States, we also have considerable difficulties there. I have to say that the outlook is not bright in that regard, but I continue to make the offer. Somebody has examples, bring them to me. OK. We are going to move on to the next area, which Peter is going to lead on. This is about entangling domestic policy from EU legislation. We all know that it is going to be a monumental task. The Scottish Government really has the capacity and the skills to deal with this is one part of the question. How many statutory instruments do you estimate will need to be reviewed, amended as part of the Brexit process for agriculture and fisheries? What processes and structures are you, as the Scottish Government, putting in place to do precisely that? The great repeal bill was meant to be published at the time of the Queen's speech. There now won't be a Queen's speech, of course, but at least there will be, but it will be at least six weeks later. I have discussed the great repeal bill in considerable detail with David Davis and with others, and my officials have been deeply engaged in it. There are a number of questions raised by the great repeal bill. I will answer Mr Chapman's question, but let me just put it in context. There are a number of issues raised by the great repeal bill, the first of which is, can this be done in Scottish terms by a series of legislative consent motions? In other words, can the process take place at Westminster and can we join ourselves to the process and streamline that process by means of legislative consent motions? Or would we, given the nature of us as a legislative parliament, require to do all the separate legislative, both primary and secondary legislation? We won't know that until we see the great repeal bill, because the great repeal bill itself will, we are told, take an approach that involves not simply the legislation, but also case law, because much of the European legislation, of course, is judged in effect by the case law that takes place. We have to see what is proposed in the great repeal bill before we can answer the question of whether we bring forward legislation or whether we are able to buy a series because the great repeal bill is the first of several bills, possibly 10 or 12 bills, or whether we ourselves will have to bring forward legislation in order to cope with the change. In addition to that, if we are planning to put in place a different agricultural regime and if agriculture is in the end fully devolved, then we would want to have a separate repeal bill for the agricultural instruments from the one that is going to exist at Westminster. The short answer, having given you the long preamble, is that it is likely that there will be many thousand legislative instruments. We might be able to short circuit the process by a legislative consent process, which would be far better, but it may in the end be necessary for us to bring primary and secondary legislation, which will be very complex and will take considerable time. Given that the objective of the great repeal process is to ensure that, on the day the UK leaves, there is no hiatus in law, that period has now been shortened by about six weeks, the available period for it, by the decision to hold an election. So, this is going to become a difficult, complex and time-rest constrained process, which will occupy quite a lot of parliamentary time from about the autumn of this year onwards, not just at Westminster, where it is going to drive out most other legislation, but may well also be very prominent here. Do you feel that there is the capacity and the skill within this organisation, within this Parliament, to do precisely what the work it may be needed? We all understand that it will be difficult, and there is much to be done, but can we cope? We will have to cope, otherwise there will be a hiatus at the end of this process. This is not something that we have volunteered for, but we will have to cope. I have had good discussions with the Faculty of Advocates, with the Law Society, with a range of others. The Lord Advocate, of course, is deeply involved in Scottish Government legal services, but I do not think that anyone will underestimate that. The key information on that we do not yet have, because that key information is—and we do not, to be fair, we do not know if the UK Government has it, because it is such a complex task. There was a troll of information that took place from last October onwards, looking for what would have to be done. We played our part in that troll, and we have a considerable amount of data as a result of that troll, but the way in which Westminster chooses to legislate first to kick this process off will determine what else follows. As we have not seen that, as we do not know that, we did get an advance copy of the white paper on the Great Repeal Bill, but it was an advance copy by about four hours, rather than several weeks or months beforehand, and it would have been helpful to try to get as early information as we can. Thank you. I will leave that subject there and now move to Gail. Thanks. Last question. Can you set out the phases that you are planning for the coming months and you are just in broad terms for future plans for agriculture and fisheries? What is the Scottish Government doing to prepare the rural economy for the possibility of life without EU funding? Can I lay out the phases of what we understand to be the phases of withdrawal, and then perhaps Mr Ewing can then fit the agricultural policy changes into that? As you have offered, Mike. Yes, you may. Thank you. That is very good of you. The article 50 letter triggered a two-year process, which the clock is now ticking. The first response is due on 29 April. The second and detailed response in terms of negotiating stance from the council is due at the end of May. That will of course be subject to delays in terms of discussion because of the UK election. The anticipated phases of negotiation are, first of all, negotiation on the cost of withdrawal, although it is now perhaps becoming clearer that that will be about a methodology of setting costs rather than cost itself, which is crucial because once the cost is known, there will be the mother and father of all rows, I am sure, whereas setting the methodology may not declare the cost at the beginning of the process. It is anticipated that that and the issue of EU nationals and reciprocal arrangements for UK nationals in Europe, plus one or two other technical issues, will dominate the first period of negotiation. The question is, will there be a parallel set of negotiations on the details of the trade and other issues? The European Commission presently says no that it will want to finish the first part, and only if that is finished will it move on to the second part. I think that most people expect some dovetailing towards the end of the process. That will take into the autumn, I would think, before the negotiation on substantial issues takes place. That will be very much a sectoral negotiation. If the UK had agreed to stay in the single market in some way or another, it would have been a much simpler negotiation. It would essentially have been a single market minus, so the negotiation would have been about what you weren't contributing and what you weren't taking part in. Because the UK has set its face against that, because of the issues that are largely to do with the ECJ and not accepting judgments outside the UK, then you will have a detailed sectoral process. That is very complicated. It has to be finished in framework terms by essentially the end of 2018 to allow a ratification process, which will involve more than 30 parliaments, because there will not just be the national parliaments, but some of the sub-state parliaments will have the right to do so. The only Parliament does not appear to have the right to do so as a Scottish Parliament, but I will just make that point. At the end of that, there will then be a decision on the framework, but then putting that into effect may take several years, because there will be transitionary arrangements to be had. I would expect the agriculture and fisheries issues to be negotiated during the year to 18 months of detailed negotiation, that is from the autumn of this year to the autumn of the following year, but I wouldn't expect the final arrangements to be going into place until the transition phase, which would be from providing the Parliament's vote for this in the European Parliament as a final say, yes or no. That would be from the spring of 19 onwards, and the question is, how long will that be? That is all speculation. It is informed speculation, but anything could change, including any willingness by the UK not to remain within the process. That the European process would continue and come to an end, but the UK might have walked away. Fergus Ewing, do you want to add anything very briefly to that on time scales? The question was about phases, and we are in the first phase. The first phase is to seek clarity about funding, what the UK proposes would be the alternative to EU funding. That clarity is essential. Secondly, about powers. We need clarity that all the powers on agriculture and fishing come to this Parliament. Thirdly, we need a resolution of the convergence issue, which I have described earlier on, and which I will be pressing as I hope with the support of all members of this Parliament. Fourthly, from what we just heard from Mr Russell's annunciation, it seems unlikely that there will be the prospect of any deal in relation to the continuing relationship of the UK, Brexit and the EU on rural matters for some considerable time to come. Therefore, it is absolutely clear that the UK Government should not postpone any longer its recognition that there must be a serious transition plan laid out. Plainly, it is impossible from what we have heard—this discussion today is illustrative of this—to devise brand new fishing and forestry and farming policies and funding programmes between now and April 2019. It is simply impossible. Anybody can understand that. Therefore, a transition plan is required. It is also required for this vital reason that those who are working in the rural economy need reasonable clarity about what the future will hold regarding the funding of the excellent work that they do. The sooner the UK Government comes up with a proper transition plan, the sooner some form of reassurance might be able to be provided to those who are building and delivering on the rural economy across the board. I thank all of you, because that brings to a conclusion our session on Brexit this morning. I thank you very much, Mike Russell, David, I noticed you helping the minister, and Alan, I thank you very much for your contribution. Jonathan, I thank you also for being in attendance. I would like to briefly suspend the meeting while we give the witnesses a chance to change. I would now like to move to item 4 on the agenda, which is seat bells. I would like to welcome Sian Gullen, the convener of the Transport, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee of the Scottish Youth Parliament, Joanna Murphy, chair of the National Parent Forum for Scotland and Eileen Pryd, the executive director of the Scottish Parent Teacher Council. We have a series of questions that members would like to ask you, and the first one is going to come from Stuart. Thank you very much, convener. It is kind of a broad brush question. We have got feedback from the SPTC and from the youth parliament, so that is before the committee already. In broad terms, will the bill bring any benefit to safety and school transport? I would like to start that off, Eileen. I think that the principle is absolutely right that when parents send their children off to school and entrust them to their local authority, their local authority is in local parentis. If I put my children in the car, I cannot take them anywhere without strapping them in. I think that it is completely unreasonable to suggest that local authorities should be in any other position. Our children should be strapped in when they are in school transport. In fact, we have made a point in our paper that in many areas it is service buses that take young people to school. We would argue that perhaps there is an argument for extending, but certainly within school transport children should have seat belts. We should be taking co-ordinated measures to encourage them to do it, and I thought that the evidence from the youth parliament was very interesting. However, we know that there are ways to influence behaviour, that there are ways to encourage young people to make safe choices, and we should be doing everything that we can to do that. The fact that young people might rail against the adults who are trying to impose seat belt wearing on them is not to make sure that there are seat belts and to do everything that we can to make them use them. John, do you want to come back and add to that? You would have to hope that it will have some benefit. Obviously, there are a lot of plans already that are utilised within school transport, and I agree with Eileen on what she says. I feel that we are in a position now to start discussing and communicating with the young people and their parents about what is already in place and what will be coming into force with any changes, so that it is not seen as an imposition that young people will rail against, but they understand fully why they are being asked to put a seat belt on in the back of a bus or car. Do not worry about pushing the buttons. The gentleman on your left will make sure that the light comes on at the critical moment. Young people are railing against all the adults who tell them to put their seat belt on. It is about making sure that it is working with the young people rather than just doing something to them. It is about a partnership with a task force or something that young people, parents, teachers working nationally and feeding down to the local authorities. It is done in a way that there is a national minimum standard of safety for young people and an understanding across Scotland that young people need to be wearing their seat belts. We are telling you to wear your seat belt, it is the case of, well, we want you to wear your seat belt, can you tell us why you are not rather than the case? In your review of responses that there was nearly 69 per cent of people who were asked were in favour of wearing seat belts, it seems to be convincing the others. Do you want to come back on that? Probably the simple thing to ask on the back of that and perhaps I will direct a specific thing, if I may, to Eileen, prior and more general to the other at the same time. I got a hint from what you were saying, Eileen, that you might be in favour of quite stringent measures to enforce. The most stringent I could think of—and you did not say this and I emphasised it—would be to deny transport to people who would not wear seat belts. I would imagine that to be an option, but not necessarily one that you would pursue. For the others, I suppose that the question is a more general one, is does this whole issue generally promote an increased awareness of the need for personal safety and school transport and that there are other more interesting and exciting ways of putting yourselves at risk in environments where the consequences may not be so severe? I do not think that I would say that I am in favour of stringent rules. I entirely agree with the notion that this is something that we do with not to. Schools, local authorities, parents and young people need to work together on this so that it becomes something that is the norm just as 30 years ago smoking was the norm, it no longer is. Just as seat belt wearing was not the norm, well, now it is. It will not happen quickly, but it is a process by which we work together to change behaviours. We have to use a wee bit of a carrot and a wee bit of a stick to achieve that. Would you like to comment generally on that? Not really, no, just to agree. You do not have to comment if there is something that you want to add. John, should we move on to the next question with you? I am following on from what Stuart was asking. I am struck by the point that Ms Gullan made about let's work with and persuade people on things. Do we really need a bill here at all? Surely we could work with the local authorities, most of them are already doing this. Do you think that there is really a need for a bill? There is always a need for legislation where there is any sense of adubiety or a sense that somebody along the—there are a lot of different companies, a lot of different local authorities that are involved in that. Where there is that kind of ambiguity or sometimes seen as a way out, then there needs to be legislation to stop that. It is the most important thing for a parent and obviously for the young person that when they go on a bus to school, in the event of an accident, they come back, they are safe. We cannot mess about with that kind of thing. If it is not working without legislation, then there needs to be some legislation to make it work better. Very simply, just to make it a requirement for local authorities in their contracts for school transport to have seatbelts fitted, why would you need legislation? Fion, whether it needs to be legislation or part of the contracting process, what would you rather see? I will tell you one of the responses that we had, because we use social media a lot to communicate with parents. When we talked about this bill, the most interesting response from quite a number of parents was, I thought, it was already. I thought that that was in place already. So parents are already under the impression that if their child goes off on a school bus, that there is a seatbelt present. I am not a policy person. I do not know the ins and outs of all the legislation and so on. However we do it, whether it simply be a requirement of the contract or legislation, we have to be certain that it is in place. For our young people and for our families, it is in place. I am afraid that you are the folk that are going to have to tell us what is the best way to do it, but I completely get Joanna's point that, sadly, we know that if there is not legislation, very often the game is to work to find a way around the rules. That is in every walk of life, so it may well be that legislation is required. I might have got this wrong. What the committee is gently trying to probe is that if there is a law passed to make it a requirement to have seatbelts on buses, it does not make it a requirement for the children to wear the seatbelt. What the committee is trying to understand is whether it is a requirement just to have it as part of the contract. That would achieve the same thing. I do not want to put words into your mouth whether we are not going far enough by seeking it to make it a legal requirement that you have to wear a seatbelt on a bus. Sian, do you want to come back on that? I think that something worth maybe to make the legislation slightly more useful than just put into a contract is making it that the young people and parents and teachers have to be consulted on how to implement the wearing of seatbelts. You cannot legally require them to wear the seatbelt to the legislation that you have, but I understand that you can legally require local authorities to consult with young people on better ways to implement seatbelt wearing as it is. From 14, if there is a seatbelt provided, you are responsible for wearing that yourself. It is also making young people aware that that already is in place and that legally they have to be wearing the seatbelt if it is provided. That is something to consider putting in to make sure that schools are making the young people aware of that. First of all, I can answer Mike Rumble's point. The whole point of the legislation is to make the local authorities put it in their contract. I do not think that it is neither or I think that it is the two together. If I could switch on—I think that other colleagues are going to comment about who actually wears them or not—but the other point that has been mentioned was the service buses, which are the normal buses that we all use day to day and which certainly do not have seatbelts on them. Is there any point in doing the buses that the schools contract if we do not also have seatbelts on the service buses? We certainly made the point that, in many rural areas where I live, for instance, a lot of young people get to school through an extension of the service bus. It goes its normal route, but it also goes off on a dog leg to school. A lot of young people from out with the town will travel to school on that service bus. I think that there is an argument that says that if your company is providing that kind of service, you should also be providing seatbelts so that we are not basically saying that your kids are safe, but your kids are dispensable on a service bus. I think that, as a nation, we need to be thinking about those things and about how safe our passengers are on the bus. I do not know how often any of you travel on the bus, but I tell you, there are times that I wish there were seatbelts on them. I think that there is a sad demand for empathy for that point. Peter, do you want to go with the next question? Yes, exactly. There are few injuries to kids on the way to school in buses. Given that, do you think that the requirement for seatbelts is the best way forward to improve safety? Is there something else that we should be looking at and thinking about? If so, what? When I brought the subject up with my own members of the National Parent Forum of Scotland, they started talking about a code of conduct for the young people and their parents, and when you talk about withholding the service for the bus for the young people, that has been withheld from young people who persistently misbehave on the bus. I do not think that that is the best way to go, of course, but it does happen. As we are all in agreement, we need to work with the young people, the bus companies, their parents, schools and communities, so that the young people understand the safety aspect, why people are not trying to restrain their civil liberties in any way. We just want them to be safe on the journey that you would be if you had your seatbelt on in a car. When they get off the bus, is there something that we should do? Is there something on their lighting? When they get out, crossing the roads and all that, should we just be doing more than looking at—this is your chance to tell the committee that we should be looking at more than just this bell, if that is what you think? Eileen? I think that you will know of the cases that there have been of young people who have been knocked down as they have been crossing the road to get home after getting off the bus or whatever. There are some big issues here. Speed is the big one, of course. On some rural roads, again, I live in the rural area, folk use them as a racetrack. If it is a straight, the foot goes down. There is an education process, and again, it is a carrot and stick. I think that there is only so much that you can do as a committee and that the Government can do. Legislation around that—as I say, if I put children in a car, I need to strap them in. That is legally my responsibility. I need to ensure that my passengers are strapped in. I do not think that it is unreasonable to legally expect bus companies and drivers to ensure that young people at least have the ability to strap in, and we encourage young folk to do it. I think that you referred to it. Sitting in your seat with your seatbelt on would be the safest option. Sitting in your seat without the seatbelt would certainly be a far better option than running up and down the corridor. For example, if that was the time of the bus of the accident. There is an issue about behaving on the bus. Over and above the fact that there are seatbelts in there. You did reflect on that. That is one of the issues that we need to think about as well. It was not a supplementary question. I appreciate that I might have missed this from a previous committee session, but do you think that parents in general just assume that there are seatbelts on buses? When I actually said to some folk that I know that this was going through the Parliament, the amount of times that people said to me, did they not have a seatbelt on school buses? Maybe not specifically people who had kids at school or at school age, but the amount of people who just assumed that there would be seatbelts on school transport was quite striking for me. I wondered if that was something that you came across. That was the feedback that we got. People were taking aback that that was not the situation as it stands. I notice that you are all nodding. That is a yes. You think everyone thinks that there are seatbelts. Jeremy, do you want to come in? Very briefly, just to pick up on a point that Eileen made, one of the things that has come up and crops up quite a lot in this discussion is about who is responsible for ensuring that children wear seatbelts. I use children in the loose sense because it could be younger, under 60 and over 60-year-olds. You mentioned that you think that the drivers should be responsible for ensuring that seatbelts are worn. The driver therefore represents the bus company that has the contract with the authority. Other schools of thought are that it is up to someone at the school either end of that process. Other people think that it is the children themselves, other people think that it is the parents. It is such a perhaps controversial issue, but are there any further views on who should be responsible and therefore legally liable if something happened if seatbelts are not worn? It is quite a contentious issue. Would you like to lead on that? It is contentious. I can completely see where the different perspectives come from. Young people's behaviour is influenced by all those parties. My sense is that younger children will respond to an adult telling them what to do and will generally respond favourably and do what they are required to do. Your challenge comes in teenage years, as young people are expressing themselves and getting a sense of self. Particularly with that group, you are then into the territory of peer influence and modifying behaviour through consultation and discussion and setting good example. I am trying to get out of answering your question, because I think that it is really hard. I suspect that, in a minute, you will get a second bite to answer that question, because John is going to come back along the lines of that. It may be appropriate to bring you in now, John. Good morning, panel, and thanks for your input. This is a lawmaking forum, and we are keen to make good law. I wonder whether I would seek your views and whether you feel that there is legislation to proceed and that it would be compromised if children chose not to use seatbelts. John, do you want to go on that? I suppose that it is back down to who is the enforcement. Everything would be compromised if he chose not to do it, but it is back down to discussions within the school at whatever level. I remember, as a girl, all the green cross code and all the adverts in the telly and the squirrel thing, and all the rest of it. I had already walked about crossroads with my parents, and they helped me to learn the dangers back in a time when there was much less traffic. It is back to education to the young people so that they understand, and it is back to realising why we wear seatbelts in cars and sometimes just expressing some of the mode, particularly as they get older. You would not want to be shown them any kind of videos or anything like that when they were wee of things that happened, but when they get older, if they are choosing to not do something, sometimes they have to see part of the consequences. Perhaps talking to people who have been in accidents or in some way that the Scottish Government can put out information to the young people at schools, through their parents at school level, through their parent councils and through the pupil voice of the school, might be ways of again combating and targeting the peer pressure that kids have about everything nowadays, but trying to work with them and treat them particularly at the older ages, from secondary school age, to try and work with them so that they fully understand. It is without most people's scope to know what it is like to be in an accident. Thankfully, very few of us are in accidents, but when you are in one, you do not want to be saying, oh, I wish I had worn a seatbelt that day. John, do you want to come back? Do you want to add on that? Yes, maybe just a supplement. I know that Eilam is going to come in. I was going to move on to the issue of where that is to proceed in the promotion. Would you see a role for the Scottish Government specifically in promoting that and a role for pupils and parents? Would there be a willingness in the part of—I appreciate that you do not speak for all pupils and all parents, but necessarily—would you engage with the Scottish Government in promotional material, or how do you think that that should be progressed? Where is the bill to proceed, please? I think absolutely. To return to your previous point, it is absolutely right that whatever legislation you are talking about, if people choose to ignore it, it could be compromised, but I do think that there is a carrot and a stick here, and the carrot or the stick rather is the legislation. I think that there is a lot of work that can be done. It is done in other realms, whether it is around road safety, drug use, alcohol use or knife crime. There are lots of examples of really good work going on that is specifically addressing behaviours. You have to use the example of that work and say, okay, what can we do around the issue of seatbelt wearing? Isn't it funny that teenagers will get into a car and they will just automatically do that? They would not even think about not wearing their seatbelt, so it is in their head. They already know that that is what they do. I do not think that it is a massive leap to get them to do that in their in-law school bus. In terms of the promotion of it, if you get young people involved, like videos you make, have young people talking to them rather than an adult or a teacher, the older ones will respond better. The issue with it is a lot of the behaviour on the buses in terms of not wearing their seatbelt and maybe messing around is probably secondary school buses with older pupils, like 4th to 6th year, where they have maybe gotten a bit too confident on the bus and things and they kind of see it as, oh, it is not my responsibility to be wearing a seatbelt or things if there is one, if there is not, then they are not seeing a seatbelt that is keeping them in their seat, so that is why they are getting up and walking around. It is about making sure that the older young people know that they need to set the example for the younger ones. As the younger ones stop seeing the older young people mess about, they are going to learn the behaviour to sit in the bus and sit with their seatbelt on. I think that is where it comes in on working with the schools, so maybe establish a group of older young people who are on the school bus, who maybe go around and check that people are wearing their seatbelts, but do it in a way that is not telling them what to do. It is the case of, look, you need to be wearing your seatbelt because this, this and this and it is not any sort of punishment. I think that it is about encouraging rather than punishing the young people. Any sort of punishment is just going to turn it completely the other way as they get older, as it will be more resentful rather than a partnership. John, do you want to— No, I think that I'm pleaded. Joanna, you felt that it was covered by the other speakers, yeah? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Roddick, can I ask you for the next question? Yes. It's something that we've touched on previously about how we enforce seatbelt wearing, and Eileen McHugh said that if a parent has to make sure that the child is wearing a seatbelt in a car, then surely the bus driver can do the same in a bus. I'm just wondering if that is actually workable, or whether we need somebody else on the bus making sure, given that the bus driver is more than three or four people to monitor. Just imagining the situation, I suppose that sooner the bus driver was concentrating on driving rather than monitoring what's going on behind the bus. Do you think that the bill needs to be strengthened and that there is somebody on the bus keeping an eye? If we weren't left to right, my left, you're right. I completely understand what you're saying, that the driver's attention needs to be on the road, and we know that distractions, whether they're car phones or children fighting in the back of your car, don't do much for your driving abilities, and the same will apply for bus drivers. I think that there is something there about if there is a pattern of behaviour where young folk are not wearing seatbelts, that there has to be some sort of intervention. I don't know how that would work, I don't know who that would be, whether it would be a member of school staff. In fact, in many rural areas, you'll find that school staff do also travel on those same buses, but they won't actually have a specific role during the travel time. I'd be interested to explore what that could look like and who could take on that responsibility. Anna, do you want to come in on that? I think that it gets back into not enforcing something. It's about understanding why you might not want to not do it. We've talked about parents and the young people in the schools, but part of that has to then go back to the bus staff and the local people who are running the bus or the drivers, or whomever that happens to be. It's another important part of this group of different people. It would be interesting to find out from that point of view what they think, and not in a way to try and say, well, we don't want to do it and wash our hands of it, but in a way of what they think would be the best option. If it is to do with, as you say, a parent could be standing at the bus stop and safely strapped their young person in, although I would like to hesitate to do that with your teenage children. That would be the last thing that any of them would want you to do is be anywhere near them. Even if you could be there, safely strap them in, get off the bus and they could have it off the seat belt off before you even turn the corner. We have to get back to why they want to keep it on. Schools need to think of schemes that reward young people for keeping the seat belt on, rather than punishing them for taking it off. You'd be imaginative about things that we perhaps are looking at things in a different direction. In terms of a scheme for rewarding young people, I know that my school did it with littering around the school, so it was the case that if you were seen putting your litter in the bin, there was a chance to win a prize in a raffle. You got given a ticket and people won vouchers for the shops in the local town and things. Something like that might not be on such a large scale, but in terms of recognising when young people put their seat belt on, especially with the younger age group. Quite often, it is quite competitive to get a prize in things, especially with S1 and S2. They quite often like to be told that they are doing really well with this, whereas perhaps maybe with the older ones it is more about giving them a sense of responsibility about wearing their seat belt, rather than being told to wear it. It is more about what they are doing for themselves, rather than just for the bus driver to stop them getting on at them. The legislation, as it stands, only makes it clear that there should be seat belts fitted on the buses. It does nothing about the wearing of seat belts, because that is a reserved issue. We spoke to the Scottish Government officials about that and asked the question about local parenters. If they were not wearing the seat belts, which is not required in the legislation, and there was an accident and someone got hurt, where would the responsibility lie on this? Their response was that that needs to be tested in the courts. Do you think that we need to strengthen the bill? Are you happy that the bill is strong enough on this? Eileen, I am just trying to think—it is a very difficult question on where responsibility lies, and I am mindful of what you said earlier about parents thinking that seat belts are there and the school being considered parentis when the child is with them. In terms of risk and managing risk and so on, the contract is between the local authority and the bus company. It would seem to me that it becomes a local authority responsibility to ensure that the buses are to a standard. We also, in our evidence, talked about the maintenance of school transport being another issue, which comes up regularly. Ensuring that the companies maintain the buses properly and provide seat belts. If there were an accident, it would seem to me that it is a local authority responsibility. Not that anyone would like that answer, but I think that that would be the case because the bus companies contracted to the local authority. Does anyone want to add to that? It is quite a tricky question, Jenny. You are raising your eyebrows. I am not sure whether that means that you want to add to it or not. I suppose that it is back to thinking out of the box a wee bit, but thinking more imaginatively about why you might want to not put your seat belt on. Generally, everybody knows that it is safe. If there is a seat belt there, it is the most safe option. I am trying to get back to thinking differently so that the local authority plays a part in that. It cannot just say, well, we contract the buses, so it is up to them. There may need to be in some of the more rural parts of Scotland where kids are on the buses for quite a long time. There needs to be a way of engaging them and keeping them safe so that they are not just being told to sit there for an hour, and in an hour back just because we say so. There are other issues that will make the seat belt wearing a secondary issue. If you put your seat belt on and then you have nothing to do for an hour and sit and look out a window in the rain, it is not great, but carrying on is a much better option. I suppose that we have to think about that. If it needs to be that the local authorities have to find a way of having somebody on the bus with the young people, then maybe that is the answer in some cases. Sian, do you want to come back? There is one further question. No, was that now? Jamie, you have got the last question. Specifically, it applies to the commuting tune from home and the school. Does it not include excursions or school trips or anything that happens during the day? Do you think that those should be included, or are you happy for those to be left out? I think that this is something that is worrying the committee. Jan, do you want to start on that? I think that they should be included. In my experience, going out as a parent helper on coaches, essentially, taking young people to events. I cannot remember a time where there have not been seat belts on the coaches, for example. At that point, because it is during the school day, there are school staff within and other parents on the bus in the ratio that is needed for safety. One of the things that you do as a parent helper is to go round and make sure that every single person has got their seat belt on. If they cannot put it on, you help them to put it on. Do you want to add to that? I think that it is something that should be included. The same age group of young people that are going on the bus are the ones who might be getting the exact same bus into school. It needs to be done, because a lot of the time a school trip is a lot of a longer journey. They might be coming all the way up to Edinburgh from somewhere, rather than just down the road to the school. It is more the case of making sure that all bases are covered. You do not want there to be a little loophole somewhere where they can get a cheap bus in to save money on the school trip. It needs to be covered to make sure that young people are safe and that they know that their rights and sort of responsibility to wear a seat belt. It might help to encourage young people to make sure that they wear their seat belt if they are told on school trips by staff who are there that they should be wearing it. Again, it goes back to that that school is in local parentice. They have to look after my children. Thank you. That is all three agreed. There is one further question that might be going to ask, and that will then conclude it. We are told that the memorandum goes with the bill that there were about 110 buses without seat belts in Scotland. The majority of local authorities already have that as a requirement. The Strathglad partnership for transport already told us that their local authorities are moving along with it. The vast majority of local authorities already have that requirement to have seat belts on the bus. My question really is, can you give us any insight from your experiences or any feedback that you have had from people across the country where this is the norm? We have already got seat belts in buses. How are local authorities dealt with the wearing of seat belts? They are already in the vast majority of places, so how are they dealing? How are the current lot of local authorities, who already have that requirement, dealing with the issue of safety, and has it improved safety? I am very happy to set brief answers, if you have no experience. From young people, I have spoken about this when we were doing our report. I spoke to a couple of young people, and I knew that I had school buses to school. There are seat belts as their coaches that they get into school, so they quite often say that a lot of young people have set up their back and not put a seat belt on and mess around, which is something that schools still need to address. If there was legislation where the local authority comes more legally liable for the young people not wearing their seat belt or not encouraging them to wear their seat belts, they might be more willing to put in some sort of steps to make sure that the bus drivers or the young people are making sure that seat belts are being worn even if they are there. Thank you. That is all the questions that we have. I think that it has been a very interesting session for us and has been very informative. I personally, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the Scottish Youth Parliament for the research that they have done. There is also a list of primary schools that came into the Parliament and contributed through the education services to that. There are various other people who have put in responses, which we have all read in part of the paper. I would also like to thank the three of you for spending the time and coming in. It is always very interesting to hear the views of the people who will be working with it and have seen it working on the ground. Thank you very much for your time. I am briefly going to suspend the meeting now to change witnesses. Thank you. I would like to move to the fifth item on the agenda, the subordinate legislation. This is a negative instrument, as detailed on the agenda. The committee will now consider any issues that it wishes to raise in reporting that to the Parliament. The member should note that no motions to annull have been received in relation to this instrument. There have also been no representations to the committee on this instrument. Does any member of the committee want to make comment on the instrument? Therefore, is the committee agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to this instrument? That is agreed. The final item is going to be taken in private session. Therefore, I would like to close the meeting at this stage to move into private session.