 Rwyf, fawr iawn y ddiwedd, wrth gyrdd ddefnyddiaethol codingol a cyfnod y cyfeirddiaeth clyweddau Tyfan. Algu fawr iawn fawr iawn, a gan dod i yma felly ei ffordd Mae cyfnod, byddai'r ddefnyddio'r gyrddion rydym yn meddwl o'r systr, ac mae'n gychwyn i'r ddod, wrth gwrs, hynny byddai'r ddweud sydd yn ymy dependence cyflwyneidau cyfnod yn mynd i'r duoli. Mat for the younger generation. Agenda item 1 is subordinate legislation. First item today is for the committee to consider the following negative instrument. Marketing of vegetable plant material amendment, Scotland regulations 2014, SSI 2014, stroke 111. Members should note that no motion to a null has been received in relation to this instrument and are referred members to the paper. Is there any questions or comments? Who knows the Latin for a tomato now, then? In which case, if there are no further comments, then I ask the committee, are we agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to this instrument? They're being done. We note that. Agenda item 2 today is again subordinate legislation. This agenda is for members to take evidence from the cabinet secretary on single-use carrier bags charge Scotland regulations 2014. Instruments being laid under the affirmative procedure, which means that the Parliament must approve this before provisions may come into force. Following this evidence session, the committee will be invited to consider the motion to approve the instrument under agenda item 3. I welcome the cabinet secretary Richard Lochhead, this morning, and Peter Stapleton, policy manager for waste prevention Scotland in the Scottish Government. Good morning, and I ask the cabinet secretary if he wishes to speak to the instrument. Good morning. Thank you, convener, and it's good to see that we're wearing the same tie this morning. As indeed are many members of the committee to celebrate Learning Disability Awareness Week and our enable Scotland ties. I'm pleased to be here to discuss a very important issue for Scotland's environments, because I believe that the introduction of a charge for single-use carrier bags will be one of Parliament's highest-profile environmental measures since the Parliament was founded. Of course, it's a measure that will affect everyone in Scotland and show that Parliament is ready and willing to take a lead to tackle Scotland's litter problem in particular. Scotland uses around 750 million single-use carrier bags, believe it or not, just from supermarkets alone. That's more per head than anywhere else on these islands, and indeed that's the equivalent to 12 bags per person in Scotland for each month of the year. We want to reduce the number of those bags that have been given out to help tackle the blight of litter in our streets, in our countryside and, of course, in our waterways. They can form a very highly visible and damaging component of litter and have a particular impact also on Scotland's seas. That measure should therefore be seen as part of our wider work in tackling Scotland's litter problem, particularly this 2014, the year of the Commonwealth Games and Rider Cup, when we're inviting many people to come and visit our shores and we want to make sure that our country's looking beautiful. Single-use bags are also a symbol of a throwaway society. That policy, of course, is all about attaching a value to something perhaps that many people have not attached a value to in the past because it's free and it's also about engaging the widest possible number of people in environmental behaviour to encourage everyone who will be affected by this policy to consider their own impact on Scotland's environment and, again, particularly on Scotland's litter problem. By placing a value in these items, we want to encourage people to reuse their bags and consider switching to alternatives. Beyond that, we are, of course, promoting reuse of other items to help get the most out of our increasingly limited resources and cut carbon emissions at the same time. So these regulations are designed to offer a proportionate response to the issue. We have been careful to ensure that the administration will be as light touch as possible, particularly for smaller businesses. It is a requirement to charge. It's not a tax. While the purpose is about influencing behaviours rather than fundraising, we are encouraging retailers to donate the net proceeds to good causes. We have every reason to believe that the majority will do the right thing. It is clear that there is support for this measure from many retailers, from our customers, from environmental NGOs, hopefully from Parliament, and last year's consultation saw a strong response in favour of the charge and we have had a constructive dialogue with stakeholders during the whole of this process. There is a growing international appetite for action as well. It is not just here in Scotland. Many countries, regions and cities around the world have introduced measures to tackle bag use. Similar changes are working well in Wales and Northern Ireland, just looking at these islands, with even the UK Government now set to introduce a charge in England. Indeed, it seems likely that action will be required across the whole of the EU in the next few years. It is clearly time for Scotland to act, and therefore I ask the committee to support those regulations. Thank you, cabinet secretary, and we move to questions from members. Graham Day wishes to ask a question. Thank you, convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary. Can I just clarify something, cabinet secretary? In section 88 of the Climate Change Scotland Act, as a reference to the net proceeds from this measure being used for environmental protection improvements are similar. However, in zero waste Scotland's issue at the weekend, it talked about to donate the net proceeds from the charge to good causes, as a phrase you used yourself, and it said that that may include environmental causes. We seem to have moved away from the original idea. Have we done so, and if so, why? Thank you. As I said in my original remarks, this is not a measure simply to raise funds, it is a measure to cut down the use of bags in society. Clearly, the more people, which, of course, is already happening, we use bags, the less charges there will be, and the less funds will be raised over time. The objective is not to raise the funds per se, it is to reduce the use of bags in society to help the litter problem. However, we have been in discussion with our retailers in Scotland and we expect environmental causes to benefit from the funds that are raised. The agreement that we have with retailers is that the funds raised will go towards good causes, and that may include environmental causes. Why are we not simply saying environmental causes? Clearly, some retailers already charge for bags, and they give that money to good causes. Some of those good causes could be local hospices, or they could be other good causes locally that are not necessarily directly related to environment. Rather than putting down a firm demand that went to environmental causes that may cut across existing charities that benefit, we are encouraging those retailers that will be introducing a charge to include environmental causes and the beneficiaries of the funds that are raised. If I may, thank you for that answer. Given that this seems to be a good dialogue going on here, can we be assured that the funds raised, except that raising funds is not the main purpose of this, will be redeployed in Scotland, so that it will not go out with the borders of this country? I have every confidence that the funds raised will be spent in Scotland, and that is the tone of the agreement that we have with the retailers. We have the Scotland's carrier back commitment, which is the agreement that we have signed, or we will be signing should the regulations be passed by this committee in Parliament, that the green light will be given, and then we will seek the signatures for the commitment. The commitment itself, of course, lays out various aspects of the agreement involving retailers, so we anticipate the majority, if not all, retailer signing the commitment, so we will certainly be urging that, and within that commitment will be various criteria of how they will report and publish the information in terms of what they are raising and where that money is going towards, etc. Ultimately, that information will be put in the public domain, and public opinion and Parliament and everyone else in the interest will be able to see through transparency where the funds raised are going. The experience elsewhere, particularly in Wales, is that this will work out good and the funds raised will go towards good causes. I hope that you will bear with me. I have a number of concerns about it, to be perfectly honest. I think that it all stems from the fact that I think that there is a public perception that this levy refers specifically to plastic banks, and I would have much less difficulty with it if it did, but it does not. It includes paper bags. My understanding is that evidence from Wales suggests that paper bag usage is now back to almost exactly the same level as it was before the legislation came in. I wonder if you could comment on why you chose to include plastic bags, particularly in relation to food to go outlets, fast food, where evidence shows that providing a plastic bag with the various containers and things that come along with a carry-out food meal enables the litter disposal aspect of it to be better managed, because you put your stuff back in the bag and stick that in a bin rather than chuck all the various containers out of the car window. I wonder if you could go into your thinking behind including paper bags in the legislation. Clearly, there are a number of objectives that lie behind this policy, particularly learning from the experience of other countries. The objectives include cutting down on waste in society, tackling behaviour in society in terms of the throw-away society that we have at the moment. We can encourage people to think a bit more about their environmental behaviour, because we are in the habit, for instance, of accepting single-use bags from the shops when we go there. Thankfully, more and more people now are taking bags that can be reused and bags for life. Still, as a statistic shows, there are 750 million single-use carrier bags being given out by our big supermarket chains. If we can encourage people to think twice about their environmental behaviour, I think that that would be a huge step forward. Yes, it is about cutting down carbon emissions, yes, it is about cutting down waste, but, importantly, it is about influencing behaviour and trying to encourage people to think twice about their environmental behaviour. Plastic bags clearly are a major nuisance in society to the degree in terms of litter, but other bags are as well, so it is the environmental behaviour that we are trying to engage with here. That is all bags, all single-use bags. Near my home, before I travelled to Parliament this week, I was out on my bike for a cycle, and, of course, I am seeing paper bags littering the side roads in the countryside. I am cycling by. It is annoying me greatly, and there are some well-known fast food chains, and I expect that that is a sight that many people are familiar with throughout our communities in Scotland. As we are tackling that culture and that behaviour, I think that if we can at least engage with the greatest number of people in society, which this policy will certainly do, hopefully that will have a positive impact. I appreciate the explanation. I am also interested that you continue to use the term single-use carrier bags, because I understand in the official report on 6 January 2009 that you agreed following figures from RAP, which indicated that approximately 74% of carrier bags were actually reused, that the term single-use carrier bag was actually inappropriate. Given the evidence from Wales, which, as I say, I understand shows that paper bag usage is back to pre-legislation levels. Clearly, what is going to make us different to the Welsh if this educating the public about litter is what is going to make us different to the Welsh experience? The Welsh experience has shown a dramatic fall in the number of single-use bags given out, and, therefore, this policy, hopefully, will have a similar impact in Scotland. That figure of £750 million that I referred to will be dramatically reduced in the years ahead once the charge comes into force. In terms of food, because I think that you mentioned food in your previous question and perhaps did not address that adequately, we decided to include fast food outlets, because, again, other countries have done that to move a look to their experience. There are some regulations that give exemptions under which circumstances there does not need to be a charge, so, for instance, uncovered hot food can be put in a bag, and that bag does not have to be charged for, but if the food that you buy from a fast food outlet is covered and then put in a bag, then a charge should apply. Of course, all the guidance that we will be issuing over the next few weeks will go out to all the outlets and retailers and give guidance on exactly where the exemptions apply and who they don't. We have looked at the experience of other countries, and, indeed, I think that the European Parliament is just looking at their legislation, and they threw out an amendment that widened the exemptions to include all fast food outlets. Similarly, Europe is looking at that as well, and I have decided to include fast food outlets and hot food. I think that we just have to strike a balance. We want to be light-touch, but we want to be sensible and move forward. There is a lot of education involved in that, so that people are aware when they will have to pay a charge from when they don't. Again, I think that the net impact of this policy will be really good for Scotland's environment and really good for Scotland's litter problem. I have one final question. You mentioned in your original opening statement that you had strong constructive dialogue with all stakeholders. You will be aware, I suspect, of a company called Smith Anderson in Cacody, who manufactured paper bags and are major suppliers to both McDonald's and Burger King. Do they believe that this measure could cost them 40 jobs? Can I just ask what your reaction is to that? Clearly, we have looked at this in going forward, and some of the companies involved produce a wide range of bags, including single-use bags, so that they will have to adapt as this policy comes into force. We have looked at the impact on employment in Scotland. As you know, the assessment that we looked at said that estimated employment will see an increase in the wider economy of 53 jobs versus an estimated reduction of between 18 and 84 jobs in the carrier bag sector. That is our best estimate looking at this. We have, over recent months, been speaking to the enterprise agencies to ensure that they are also speaking to those companies involved to see if any help can be given to them. We will make sure that that happens going forward as well. Again, it has been very difficult to identify experience in other countries that have put those policies in place of any identifiable job losses. I am not sitting here saying that there are not jobs impacted. I am just saying that it is quite difficult to look at experience in other countries to come up with some exact figures of how their jobs have been affected. We will pay close attention to this, and we will work with the companies concerned if there is anything that we constructively can do to help them to adapt. I thank your answers. I absolutely share a detestation of litter, as everybody does. If I was convinced that the measures in the legislation that referred to paper bags would reduce that litter, I would be more in favour of it. As it is, I am afraid that I will have to just choose to disagree with you on this occasion, cabinet secretary, and I am likely to oppose this when it comes to vote. I thank you for answering my questions. Jim Hume. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning, cabinet secretary. I think that we should recognise Mike Pringle, the former MSP, who two sessions ago started a member's bill on this very subject. I think that it is appropriate at this time. Cabinet secretary, you also mentioned encouraging retailers and believing that the majority would actually go ahead and do the charging How do you see reviewing that, keeping an eye on if you are actually are going to make the majority, or what sort of instruments will be in place to encourage or perhaps even more than the majority to take up this new regulation? We will certainly be keeping an eye on this, since Zero Waste Scotland are creating an essential portal, so one positive dimension of our policy in Scotland compared to perhaps what other countries are doing is collating the information that we get from the retailers to a central point. In Zero Waste Scotland, we will host websites with public, environmental organisations, anyone else that is interested, we will be able to go on that and see the information, and that is a very helpful contribution from the retailers. Of course, it will lend a lot of transparency to the process. That in itself will help the monitoring, because public opinion and wider bodies of specific interests in these issues will no doubt pay close attention to that. If need be, of course, we will return to the regulations at some future dates. We are taking a light touch approach just now. We have no reason whatsoever to believe that this will not work, because we have looked at the good experience of other countries, so therefore we are confident that this approach will work. The Climate Change Act that we are using as a vehicle, as you know for this legislation, allows us to do certain things, but should the act occur in the future to put more regulation in place, we would have to look at how to bring that forward. Good morning. As much as I hate to disagree with my colleague Alec Ferguson across the table here, surely if paper bags were excluded, all that would happen is that people would stop using plastic bags and they would all switch to paper bags, which would then mean that we would have to cut down an awful lot more trees to supply all the extra paper bags that we would have to use. Yes, and also it would be difficult to change culture and change behaviour in society if we did not have a much more realistic approach to this. I would of course gently point out that I thought that it was UK Government policy to introduce a similar charge, so there appears to be cross-party support for this across these islands, however we will wait for the detail from the Conservative low-down coalition government in London. Thank you very much. One further point, just going back to the discussion about the good causes, have you had any discussion with the retailers and so on about maybe a proportion of their funds a certain percentage going to environmental causes, because if you just leave it at good causes and may go to environmental, they could do 100 per cent for good causes, which would be a good thing in itself, but given that the littering aspect is quite an important part here, maybe 30 per cent, 40 per cent, 50 per cent maybe should actually go to environmental causes. I just wonder if you've had any discussions with them on that. We have discussed with them that we are keen for environmental causes to be supported, but for the reasons that I gave earlier, we are not stipulating that this should only go to environmental causes, because that would cut across existing relationships between some retailers and some good causes. I am sure that we are all familiar with that from our own constituencies, and therefore we are not wanting to interfere with those relationships. Again, that is why we will keep a close eye on this. We are confident that environmental causes are going to benefit. If it turns out not to be the case, clearly we will return to this issue and keep up the dialogue with retailers. Again, just looking at experience elsewhere, there's no reason to think that that will not be the case. The career-back commitment that we have stipulates that money given to good causes that are raised through this charge is additional to existing donations to good causes. We are confident that we are not going to be displacing donations to good causes at the moment. It will be in addition to that. Graham Day wants to supplementary on that point. Are there other people who are on the same point as well, or is that a different one? I have a list of Claudia Nigel and Cara so far, but Graham is okay on this point. Thank you. Can I just explore the interaction with the retailers a lot further? From the discussions that you have had, are you confident that when the funds are dispersed to environmental causes, they will be going to perhaps some small-scale local projects and not simply given in large sums to single organisations or large sums to single projects? Some retailers, of course, and I don't pretend to be an expert in all those relationships that retailers have with their local causes, but it's safe to say that, from my own experience, many retailers and from our investigations with this issue have local relationships and, therefore, the local supermarket tends to support local good causes in that locality, and we'd anticipate that being the case with the funds raised on this charge. Alex Ferguson on this supplementary point. I noticed in some of the written evidence that, in Wales, I think one supermarket chain may be more chosen to give the proceeds of the levy to a specific NGO, and I just wondered whether, I mean we could be talking about a considerable amount of money being given to organisations, which, if it happens, would be fine, but I just wonder when the government is looking at funding an NGO that has received possibly a considerable amount of money through this levy, would it be taking that into account when determining how much money to distribute to these organisations? Generally speaking, when the government supports NGO activity, it's for specific projects, so that would all depend upon the nature of the project, to be honest. Clearly, there are examples in the past where we've worked with retailers themselves on specific environmental projects, and we've had joint projects with them, so there's a whole variety of models out there. I'm not going to say that, yes, that would definitely be the case if we take that into account, because there's just so many different circumstances. I think the key is that we have the opportunity in the short term, the more successful policy becomes, the less money will be raised, but in the short term we have several million pounds that will potentially be raised for good causes in Scotland that would not otherwise be there, and that's good news for local campaigns and charitable causes in all our communities. OK. I'll move on to Claudia Beamish. Thank you, convener. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. I see this as a very positive step forward in relation to our climate change commitments and also the dreadful cases we see of littering in rural areas as well as urban. Could I just ask you in that context about what Scottish Government is doing in relation to public awareness about this whole issue a little bit more, and also just if there are any concerns about the ability of local authorities as the enforcement authority, just if you could clarify a bit more about their responsibilities. OK, thank you. We do have a communications plan, which of course will be very, very important, and the charge comes into play on the 20th of October, and we have a three-week campaign planned in the run-up to that date, and then a two-week campaign thereafter. Over that period of time, we will be working with retailers and with the media to raise awareness about this policy, and that will hopefully generate a lot publicity and get the message across to lots of people. My understanding is that members will hopefully share this view. There's a lot of public support for this policy, so people will engage. Just in terms of the local authority enforcement of the regulations. In terms of local authorities, we also have to work with our local authorities. Again, we're having a very light-touch approach to this, but the trading standards officers in local authorities will have the responsibility for any checks and for following up any intelligence-led information that they receive. So I don't anticipate lots of inspections happening or anything like that. Clearly, if it's intelligence-led and people report to their local trading standards office that the policy has not been adhered to by whoever, then they may have grounds for looking at that and giving advice, perhaps in the first instance. I mean, it's going to be a light-touch approach. OK, Nigel Don. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning, Cabinet Secretary. I've heard what you said earlier about the explanation, so I'm working within that. I think I'm slightly surprised that it doesn't appear to be anything within the regulations that separates out biodegradable materials. I think somebody just looking in on this would say, well, if that bag is biodegradable, then surely we would treat it differently. Now, as I said, heard what you said, litter is litter, and it doesn't matter whether it's biodegradable. But of course, biodegradable litter does eventually go away, whereas a non-biodegradable or plastic plainly doesn't, and that's, I think, is the thing we really are worried about. So could you explain to me perhaps what you're thinking is on why materials don't matter in this context, if I'm right in that, which thinks the position? And secondly, whether we might in time want to modify the regulations to adapt as perhaps the marketplace adapts to materials anyway? Well, clearly a visible litter does not differentiate between biodegradable and non-biodegradable, visible litter is visible litter, and it's a social nuisance, and it spoils our lovely environment and countryside in Scotland, as well as our communities. So that's why we took the view that we will focus on single-use bags, attach a value to that, again to return to the theme of trying to influence environmental behaviour in society. So we have had to consider all these issues, again just looking at international experience and looking at what we think would be suitable for Scotland and tackling the litter problem and our throwaway society. We decided just to go for single-use bags irrespective. I'm not sure, Peter, of what's elaborating any of the thoughts in the beginning of the process. I think a couple of things have already been said, when the point that we had from Dick Thompson about switching, if you don't make it material neutral, then automatically you create an incentive for retailers to switch from one material to another. The overall aim of the policy is to reduce the number of bags. I think that the point that hasn't been mentioned is on the carbon impact of bags. Obviously all bags have a lesser impact. Paper and biodegradable bags actually have a significantly higher carbon impact than plastic bags, so that's again a reason for us not wanting to do something which sort of creates a switch into those types of materials. When the Environmental Order Committee looked at the UK Government's proposals on this, they were quite critical of that aspect in particular. That's a very interesting input, because if biodegradable materials have their own downside, then that's a significant part of the argument. Presumably what we would be looking at in the longer term is that those bags that we do need, because some things will need to be thrown away, should be in biodegradable bags, so that we finish up with zero non biodegradable waste. I'm not quite sure what timetable I'm working on, decades probably, but presumably that's where we'd want to finish. I think that that is a debate for future policy, and there's obviously much wider debates that are linked to the specific debate over bags. There's a much wider debate about resources in society and biodegradable materials that are going to landfill, et cetera, and there's separate regulations that address some of those issues. Good morning, cabinet secretary. I welcome the proposals today. Letters are a big problem in my constituency, so I'm hoping that it's going to address the eyesore that we all see on the way to work every morning. My questions are a bit related to what Claudia said earlier about public awareness. I was reading the submission from the Scottish retail consortium, in particular, about the possible impact on retail employees. Obviously, shop workers, at the moment, are subject to a lot of threats and abuse as part of their job, and how will you be working with retailers to ensure that the carrier bag charge doesn't just open up another avenue for shop workers to be attacked by angry customers? I'll be very concerned if that was the case, and hopefully we can avoid that by ensuring that there's the widest possible publicity around Scotland prior to the implementation of the policy in 20 October. As I said before, it's safe to say that there's a lot of public support for this, and I think that Keep Scotland Beautiful has published a role in the opinion poll in the past couple of days, showing significant support among the public for this policy. I've got no reason to anticipate that there will be any degree of hostility from the public. I'm not saying that everyone will support it, but in terms of people going about their daily shopping, people will hopefully get behind this policy, especially given that there will be an awareness campaign prior to the actual policy community force. I would also point to the fact that many stores already charge. I'm not aware of any such instances from those stores. I'm not saying that they've not happened because there's got no evidence, but we have a whole range of outlets at the moment in Scotland that charge for bags, so that's not something that's wholly new, clearly a policy. We'll make it a national policy, but already some retailers have gone down this road of their own accord voluntarily, so this has been tried and tested, and it works in many retailers. I accept that. I know that you said that there's a lot of public awareness, but I would say that most people aren't aware that those charges are going to come in at this stage, so I welcome the campaign that you're talking about. There's a lot of cynnys about supermarkets and where they spend their money, and there's probably quite a lot of people who will think that this is just another way to boost on supermarkets profits. I was just from that point of view that I'm concerned about the impact on shop workers, but I appreciate the points that you've made. That's a very good point. Again, that's why the awareness campaign is so important, and why we're putting a lot of effort into transparency over what is raised and where the monies are going to, and why Scotland's slightly ahead of the game, because we've been down the road of also having a central portal that will be hosted by Zeroway Scotland, so people can go on to the website and see where the money is going on the assumption that retailers sign up to the commitment, which we'll know about in the next few months. I remember the Welsh Minister saying to me when I was having a chat with him at one point about this, and I don't want to put words into his mouth, but I'm sure I remember him saying this, which was that whilst there was some reluctance from some of the retailers in Wales prior to the introduction of the charge, now they go to great lengths to advertise in store how much they're raising and where the money's going to in good causes, so consumers and customers are able to see that as they go into the local store, so they're making a virtue of the fact now that they're raising this money and giving it to charities. There was mention made of the plastic bag levy bill in a previous Parliament, which both yourself and myself have been a party to the discussions of us. We were members of that committee, cabinet secretary. Can you just remind members here what has changed since that was dealt with in those days and where we are now? Yes, I remember that well. I haven't been involved in the debate at the time. There's a couple of key differences. Firstly, we are introducing a charge as opposed to a tax effectively, and the administration involved in what we're doing is a lot less than what was previously proposed. I don't think anyone argues with the fact that what was previously proposed was well-intentioned and certainly helped spark the debate in Scotland. I know it was a very good debate that we had back in Parliament those years ago. The other change, of course, is that that was a plastic bag measure, and our regulations, as we've just discussed, cover single-use bags irrespective of whether they're plastic or paper. Thank you very much for that. Any further questions at the moment? If not, then we will move on to agenda item 3. The third item today is consideration of the motion S4M10052, asking for the committee to recommend approval of the affirmative instrument, the single-use carrier bag charge Scotland regulations 2014 draft. The motion will be moved with an opportunity for a formal debate on the SSI, which can procedurally last up to 90 minutes. In practice, most issues will have been covered, I hope, and indeed we can have some more brief remarks than that. However, I invite the cabinet secretary to speak and move the motion. Thank you very much, convener. My remarks are very brief. I think that we've covered good grounds in our previous conversation. As I said before, I think that this will be a landmark piece of legislation for the Scottish Parliament to adopt should it be passed in terms of making a very strong environmental statement that we want to tackle the throwaway society in Scotland and tackle our litter problem as well. The Government has gone to great lengths to ensure that we can work in partnership with our retailers and business community in taking this forward, and that is why we have favoured the light-touch approach. While it will be law and we will expect a charge to be introduced for what has previously been free single-use bags in our country, the approach will be to keep that as light-touch as possible. The benefits will include a cleaner environment, a more beautiful environment in Scotland and using our resources more wisely by creating less waste, and at the same time raising potentially millions of pounds for good causes in our local communities for environmental causes and other causes. It is a big step forward for Scotland's environments, and we have gone to great lengths to learn from other countries who have made a success of this policy. I am very confident that we will make a success of this policy in Scotland and that the people of Scotland will get behind this as a way of cleaning up their country. I formally move the motion. Other members wish to speak in the formal debate. Very much, convener, and thank you, cabinet secretary. I do not want to rehearse the arguments that I went over with you before. I would like to put on record my disappointment that the round table of retailers that we hoped to engage with last week chose not to come in front of the committee because I think it would have given us as committee members and certainly myself an opportunity to tease out some of the issues that I was talking about. However, that was the decision that was taken and we are where we are. I think that it has slightly reduced our ability to really get into some of the details of this in the depth that perhaps I would like to have done. I do find in reading the written evidence that has been submitted to us that there is quite a lot of conflicting evidence within it. I remain unconvinced that this legislation is going to achieve the aim. I hope that I am wrong and I mean that quite sincerely. I could not help but notice that in the Republic of Ireland, which achieved a supposed 90% reduction in plastic carrier bag usage, the total use of plastic film increased by 33% because people found other ways of using different forms of plastic to reuse, if you like. As I say, I hope that I am wrong but I think that there is evidence to suggest that we have not really thought this through in quite the way that I think we should have done, especially as I mentioned in my questioning in regard to the food to go sector use of paper bags. I think that we really have a problem with that. I hope that Dave Thompson would recognise that I was focusing really not on just on complete use of paper bags instead of plastic. I was trying to focus on particularly that one sector. As I said, I do not want to go over the whole thing again, but I am unconvinced that this legislation is as rigorous as it needs to be and for that reason I will be opposing this in a vote. I repeat, I hope that I am wrong. I think that this is about helping to bring about attitudinal and behavioural change in relation to the environment. It is something that this committee has explored in detail and been very supportive of. In terms of the food to go sector, if it involves charging for the wee bag into which your pie or pastry is put when you purchase it from the baker, I would perhaps have some sympathy with Alex Ferguson's point, but it is about the carrier into which these are then put and carriers are carriers in this situation. I also very much recognise the cabinet secretary's description of what he has encountered in his constituency and the verges of the rural roads. We see many of people now who considerably bag the receptacles for drink in burgers and then toss them out the window and litter our countryside. I absolutely support the measures that are before us. I thank everyone else who wishes to speak. Nigel Dawn. Thank you, convener. Can I just add to that? First of all, I endorse everything that Graham has just said about the verges as we leave our communities. It really is quite appalling and anything that can improve that has got to be a good idea. Can I also just comment on the fact that the cabinet secretary has made a lot of reference to experience from elsewhere? Of course, he should and that is absolutely right. I cannot just help but fail, but once we have introduced this, as I am sure we will, there will then be a few years of our own experience and I think I would suggest at this stage as we need to be prepared to come back to this at some point and just look at how it's worked, recognise what the objective really is, which I think we all endorse, and then say, do we need to tweak it? I don't think there's anything wrong with this at this stage, I think we just have to go with what we've got in front of us, but just be alert to the fact that in time we may feel it just needs to be modified a bit and that shouldn't worry us, that's what Parliament's do. If that's all, I'll just say one or two words. I welcome this discussion today because it throws up all sorts of potential means for us to try and improve people's behaviour. We aren't perfect at the way we do that, but we make steps forward because it respects local decisions made by supermarkets as to how they think and indeed local shops about how they will support local good causes and that the evidence from Wales is of environmental nature of many of these which I would encourage. It also puts a value on bags which has not been there before. In a throwaway society you have a situation where people just take them and throw them away and we have to move away from a throwaway society to one which puts value on each of the items we're talking about. The national standards which have been set, I welcome, but their local delivery is one of the major messages that I would hope would come out from this discussion just now because we're often said about Governments being interfering, but I think this is a good example where the national standards can be applied and delivered locally with local responsibility taken. With regard to the remarks that have been made by Nigel Don, clearly it's in this committee's remit to suggest in future work programmes that we look at how this has worked and indeed after this Parliament in the legacy paper if the members have agreed it's something which we can flag up for future committees to look at and in those, you know, in that light I see that we should come to a vote now and we therefore invite the cabinet secretary to wind up if he feels he needs to before we come to that vote. Only to agree with Alex Ferguson that I also hope he is wrong, and certainly not with the first time. That would be the first time you think I might have been wrong. Okay, I accept the clarification. Of course, to say that I very much welcome the committee's constructive approach this morning and the purpose of the committee's sitting in the Parliament, of course, is to return to those issues and scrutinise legislation after it's been enacted to see if it's working appropriately. Likewise, I'm sure the Government would want to do that as well and will do that, but any advice that you can bring forward in future years I'm sure will be welcomed by the Government of the day. Thank you. Therefore, we put the question on the motion. That is, the question is that the motion S4M-10052, in the name of Richard Lochhead, be approved. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Therefore, we will call the vote. Those who are in favour of the motion, please raise your hands. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Put your hands down. Those who are opposed, one. Those who abstain, none. The record shows that the vote was a total of eight in favour and one against. Therefore, it suggests that the committee is in favour of the motion and that, therefore, we will recommend to Parliament that it should accept this motion just now. Thank you all for your involvement. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. A short break till we move on to the next item. Agenda item 4, the Scottish Government's wild fisheries review. This agenda item is for members to take evidence from Andrew Thin, the chair and Jane Hope, the panel member of the wild fisheries review. I welcome Andrew and Jane to the meeting and I invite Andrew to make any opening statement he feels he should just now. Thank you very much indeed for a very brief opening statement. We're here to respond to your questions and we're still in the early stages of the review. Jane Hope's with me, as you've indicated. The other member of the panel just saw your aware is Michelle Francis. She's not here. In terms of reference, you're in your information papers. I think you're aware of that. Essentially, the review is about modernising the structures and the systems whereby we manage wild fisheries in Scotland. Ever since the 1960s, various reviews have suggested that we need to modernise the structures. We've never quite got round to it fully. We've been asked to produce recommendations that will fully modernise those structures and that's what we're doing. We're doing it through a very open, a very collaborative process. We've already held 29 meetings at the last count. I was near last night. 29 meetings with stakeholders and there are a great many more still to happen. I do think that that's terribly important because of the nature of this sector. There's an awful lot of people involved in it, a lot of strong feelings, a lot of different issues. We've so far managed to get from Dumfruce to Orkenistornau and Montrose, so we're recovering in the country. There is also a web page website and, importantly, we're issuing monthly progress bulletins through that website, but also anyone can get onto an email mailing list. Everybody knows the way in which the thinking of the group is developing and I do think that's hugely important because people, therefore, feel part of it. They feel able to contribute through these meetings, through the website and so on. As far as one can make a review like this collaborative, I think that we're doing so. I don't want to take you through the terms of reference. That would be somewhat boring, but I think that there are probably five themes in there and it's worth just summarising. The first is the whole issue of accountability. Wildfish are, insofar as there are anybody's property, their public property and the whole business of accountability for the way in which they are managed, both nationally and locally, is a central theme of this review in particular, so that democratically elected structures can lead and direct in a strategic manner that management of those fisheries. The second theme is that of transparency. I think we're very clear that the people of Scotland need to be able to see how and why things are being done to manage their fisheries and what the performance, if you like, of those actions is transparency, is highly important. The third theme is that of local empowerment. This is a sector that the vast majority of which, the management of which, needs to be done at a local level. There's a colossal voluntary resource, voluntary enthusiasm already involved in this sector. We need to harness that. We need to really use it. It would be completely daft, I think, to centralise and turn this into some sort of centralised bureaucracy. The fourth theme is that of doing things in an evidence-based manner. Everybody in his dog appears to have a view about how best to manage fish. We are clear that, in the day, this is about democratically accountability but on the basis of good, robust scientific advice. Lastly, a theme that gets forgotten by those who are already involved in this sector, that should be about increased participation and increased public value. The people of Scotland should, as a result of our recommendations, get greater public value from their wild fish and their wild fisheries. That's absolutely fundamental to us. It's fairly early days in the review. We've been going since March, but we've got a reasonably clear beginning. I just want to finish by making a few points. I think that we are fairly clear that there needs to be some sort of national leadership in this system. There really isn't at the moment. It's driven locally. I emphasise the importance of local commitment and enthusiasm and so on. The elected Government of the day needs to be able to ensure that it can fulfil national policy priorities. The elected Government of the day needs to be able to ensure that it can fulfil international obligations and international agreements. We're clear that there needs to be some small, I emphasise, small national strategic function to ensure that there are national priorities delivered through this system, to ensure that there is a consistent quality of delivery across the country, to ensure that science and research and data collection are consistent across the country. That doesn't mean to say that it has to be done by a central function. It simply needs to be led by a central function, and I emphasise that. The second thing that we're very clear about is that we will need to recommend a really effective network of local fisheries management organisations. We have a system of some 60 or 70 local organisations already, so we're not starting from scratch. However, the challenge is how do you make that fit for purpose in a modern world in a way that is inclusive but also accountable and transparent? We've got a lot more thinking to do on that. We've got some ideas. The third thing that I want to emphasise is the importance of finance. I think that we're clear that, at the moment, the system is financed by a number of different means, many of which are derived locally, many of which are not entirely transparent. Insofar as the system needs to deliver national policy priorities, we think that it needs to be funded through a system whereby there is a degree of national control over that funding because that ensures that national priorities are then delivered. However, that doesn't mean that all funding should be national at all. On the contrary, we need to pull off the trick of a central system with modest finance raised through some appropriate manner that can deliver national priorities, then greatly enhanced by local delivery bodies that can raise local resource, financial volunteering and all sorts of other resources. That's a trick that we're going to have to pull off. Lastly, some of the species of wild fish in Scotland are under threat. We need to make sure that the way in which they are harvested, if that's a fair word for recreational fishing, including netting of some species, is sustainable. We're doing some serious thinking about the possibility of legislative change, including the use of quotas and licensing in order to ensure that fishing is sustainable while at the same time delivering greater public benefit. That's where we've got to. I want to set the scene over to you. That's very helpful indeed. I've got two questions already lined up. Graham Day, followed by Alec Ferguson. Thank you, convener. Good morning. I guess my question, I hope, will also help set the scene. This is referred to as a wild fisheries review, yet in terms of the remit that we're told, the review will look forward, not back. It will not reassess how well the current system operates or how it might be amended. It strikes me that, at least in terminology terms, there's a contradiction there. I wonder how you can look to improve things if you don't consider where we are now or best practice examples in Scotland. It may be that you're doing that and this is just a terminology issue. Presumably, if nothing else as you go around the country, and I think perhaps particularly of Mintrose, you'll be hearing about live current issues and how people might think they might be dealt with. I wonder if you can give us a bit of clarity on the approach that's being taken here. Absolutely, that's common sense. I couldn't disagree with anything that you've said. I think that it is a matter of terminology rather than anything else. Clearly, we have to understand very well how things are operating, what the current challenges are and what the current strengths are. I think that we've actually got a pretty good grasp of that from the 20 or 30-odd meetings that we've held already. Certainly, issues like netting and Montrose are a highly politically very visible issue. We've been to Montrose, so you wouldn't be surprised. I think that the point being made is an important one, too, that I don't think the review should simply look at this in terms of how could we meddle with the current system to make it better. I think that it's right. In fact, there's been calls for this since the Hunter report in the 1960s to replace the current system with something that is more fit for purpose, but that doesn't mean that, on the basis of completely failing to understand where we are now. That's reassuring, because in this committee, for example, the River D made a trip there, and we saw a lot of good things happening there. I'd like to be assured, I think, and by what you've said, that those good best practice examples are being taken account of and the work you'll be doing, so thank you for that. Thank you, convener, and good morning. Can I just start off by very much welcoming your recognition of the importance of local level management, because I'm sure you would agree that there's a good argument saying that every single river catchment is an individual and has differences. You can't just generalise about how to manage a river catchment, and I just very much welcome that approach. Can I just tie down one aspect of the remit, which I'm not just certain about, because in the paper we have the first bullet point under remit that says that you are to consider from first principles the challenges and opportunities facing Scotland's wild fisheries? I am aware from no lesser journal than Fly tying and Fly fishing magazine, specifically May's edition, that you have been sent a letter from Dr Richelton, the former Government freshwater fisheries laboratory pitlockery head of the laboratory pitlockery, in which he states, my colleagues and I at the freshwater laboratory and our opposite numbers in the Irish Republic have known since 1989 that the collapse of sea type populations in West Highland Scotland was being driven by the large number of sea lice associated with the cage rearing of salmon. It is a problem that continues to get worse and greatly depletes salmon populations in ffiorgic systems. Now you were talking about the sustainability of some species and the importance of looking at that. To cut to the chase, will you be looking at the impact of aquaculture on wild fish stocks? Can I make two or three points? First of all, the review is very much about systems and structures that will enable us to manage all these different challenges. There's a lot of different challenges, aquaculture, climate change and the whole heap of them. I think that it's important that we focus on getting the system right. I think that the second point to make is that no two scientists ever seem to agree in my experience on anything. I seem to get conflicting advice on this issue just as much as many others. What I am clear about is that the outcome of this review will be a system that can collect, collate and analyse data and evidence in order for us to be absolutely certain that we understand what's happening in relation to sea-lice impacts on these populations and we can deal with it. So that you would consider that one of the challenges that the wild fisher is? Yes. What we're not going to do and we're not being asked to do is to review the science. We're reviewing systems. The system will not, in my judgment, be fit for purpose. If it is not then able to address all these major challenges. That was very useful. Thank you very much. Thank you, convener, and good morning to you both. Could I ask you about the development of skills for the future, which within the scope of your remit is one of the issues that you've highlighted? We did visit a number of places, including a hatchery and marine science in the North of Scotland as a committee. I'm wondering the degree to which you will be able to focus on that. What will be a changing picture of, you've mentioned climate change already, but a whole range of issues in terms of fish stocks and how to take that forward. So I'd like to know how you're getting evidence about that, if I may. The evidence in relation to skill requirements has been collected primarily through all these meetings with fisheries boards and so on, locally, much the same as you did actually, but we've probably got the time to do more of them. So I'm satisfied with getting good evidence. I think the key priority for the system is probably twofold. One is to make sure that the system delivers consistent competence right across Scotland. It's not reasonable that the people of one bit of Scotland should not have access to the same competence as people whose fisheries are in another part. Consistency is a real issue, because we're already very clear that the skill levels vary around the country. That's partly an issue of resourcing, of course. The second issue, however, is that I don't think—I think it's increasingly clear to us that skill levels tend to be a bit static. There isn't a particularly good continuing professional development system in this industry. I don't want people to go away and say, oh gosh, they're obviously not up to the mark, because that would be wrong. However, I think that we need to build into our recommendations clarity about national consistency and a national system of CPD that ensures that skills stay up to the mark and adapt to changing circumstances. A good example is aquaculture. Another example is climate change. Another example is invasive species, where we simply don't know what's going to happen over the next 20 or 30 years, so we need people's skills to adapt so that even if you are 55 or 60 and managing a river, your skills are still competent. I'm quite comfortable that we'll get that right, but we're not there at the moment, I don't think. We'll have Jim Hume next, please. Thanks, convener. Good morning to Andrew and Jeane. I'm obviously quite aware of some of the good works that's happening in my own region. Of course, the Tweed Commission and the Tweed Foundation, some of the work that they've done on the rivers, the increase in the fish numbers, as well as other invertebrates and some of the, not just in the Tweed, but of course, its tributaries. You talked a lot about national policies and how there should be a central system, albeit you did mention about keeping localness there. I mean, I'm obviously concerned if we do see a centralising off a decision-making regarding our wild fisheries or wild fish, because the nests in the Solway and Galloway and the borders can be quite different to some of the concerns up in Wontros, for example, in the River Dee. In your view, what body had you thought or maybe you hadn't thought should be looking after the national policies centrally and how can you foresee the changes that we don't throw the baby out with a bath water and ensure that there is local decision-making, which will, of course, in my view, help people to adapt, as you talk about, and give speedy, more speedy answers to problems in different parts of Scotland? Can I draw a very clear distinction between central strategic leadership and centralisation? I think it's a really important distinction here. I think it's right that the elected government of the day has the ability to provide central leadership to this system in the public interests in relation to what are legitimate national priorities, which may be about international agreements or they may be about national policy priorities. That seems reasonable, but that's about leadership. That's not about centralisation. I draw that very clear distinction and I think I will continue to emphasise, particularly given experience south of the border, the importance of local delivery and central leadership. That makes that point. The question of how we might do it, yes, there are some thoughts and I'll maybe let Jane sketch those out a wee bit around some sort of central thing, but I don't want people to go away and say, oh, they've decided that because we genuinely have not at the moment. Here's some ideas. Jane, I'll sketch them out. I was actually just going to, before we get to the ideas, as Andrew says, it's early days so I'm a bit nervous about saying too much too soon, but I've been struck by how many of the questions keep coming back to this central question of how do you get the balance between local ownership and all that good input you can get locally but needing the national oversight on some functions and I was just put in mind of a little bit of work that somebody did for the panel about experience elsewhere and I should add I'm no great expert on fisheries. I come to this with a completely open mind which has its uses but interestingly in Ireland they completely reorganised their wild fisheries and they reduced the network to seven regional fishery boards co-ordinated by a central fishery board and I get the impression that everything was fine for a while and this system gave a regional focus and retained stakeholder involvement, but it started to go wrong, I gather, when the central fishery board started to expand its role rather than providing the support to the regions and that, it seems to me, is absolutely typical of what we have to make sure we avoid. There is a place for the local and there's a place for the national but we must make sure that those two roles are well understood so that in creating a more centralized, very small structure it doesn't, over time, start to grow and expand its powers so that's a lesson from Ireland and I'm also struck by what was said at one of the open meetings I went to in respect of, particularly in respect of sea lice, there's a very good example of how the critical mass of expertise at a local level just isn't enough to deal with the really big challenges so again while management is best delivered locally we still, I think, have to provide for some access to central expertise on the really important issues and sea lice may be one of them so all the time we're going to have to get that balance right and I think I'd rather let Andrew talk in terms of what you think those models might be. Let me just sketch this very briefly. I think it's, so central leadership, it seems to me that that could be achieved by probably a single commissioner, I'm just using the word loosely, commissioner or whatever, you could come up with any old title frankly but a single person appointed through open competition by Scottish ministers to give you that democratic accountability and with a very small secretariat but drawing on existing people and resources and expertise in Marine Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage, Scottish Environment Protection Datesy so not adding cost but simply drawing on what's already there and I think you could deliver that function with something as small as that, really very small, very tight and that would still give you that national accountability which is really important. That commissioner would then agree with local delivery bodies annual fisheries management plans or perhaps five-yearly fisheries management plans whereby they set out how they intend to deliver a range of national and local priorities that they consider, they wish to pursue. There needs to be some sort of mechanism whereby the commissioner then can co-fund some of that and the rest of the funding and resource and I emphasize this is not just about money, a lot of this is about volunteering resource, can be raised locally as it is at the moment and those local bodies, I don't know at the moment exactly how many but probably quite a few of them to get localism really working probably having charitable status because that's hugely helpful in all sorts of ways for raising resource and probably adhering either directly to a model constitution or at least having a constitution which has been agreed with the commissioner so that it's to ensure inclusivity. I think inclusivity at a local level is important. I'm not persuaded at the moment that you need a fully democratic structure at a local level if you've got a constitution that ensures inclusivity. Thank you convener. Good morning to Jane and Andrew. It's really to follow on from from that same issue. I like the idea that the principle of being led nationally, you know you lead nationally but you do the thing on the ground locally, I mean I think that is the right way to go but again just getting to how do you ensure that the commissioner has enough power to do what he or she needs to do without and at the same time prevent them from expanding that power and being overbearing because that would be the danger and the tendency I think of any sort of central body that over time they might see they want to expand but okay I know we're getting into detail here and you won't have you know thought through all of this but I do believe there needs to be someone that has the the central power and authority to lead and direct especially on issues like the sea lice issue and the standoff if you like between aquaculture and angling we need to try and get a resolution to that it's been rumbling on for far too long so you do need someone that can you know get a grip of the issue and make sure it's dealt with for instance would you be thinking that the commissioner to use that phrase the powers that the commission might have would include the power to compel regulators to report to the commissioner and so on so that it wasn't I don't think it would work probably if it was purely voluntary because if the commissioner is going to be really effective he or she would need power to say to the enforcement bodies and the other bodies that are involved I require you to report to me on what you are doing about such and such and so on so you would need to draw up a pretty clear list of powers and responsibilities so there's really the two things there you know and how do you make sure it doesn't then try to expand because I really like the model that you're outlining here and I could see it being effective in a whole lot of other areas of work as well where you have the lead from government which gives you your broad standards that you actually do things on the ground and there's a lot of delegated authority on the ground again I'm sketching out preliminary thinking just emphasise that I think the office of the commissioner will need to be established by statute with clear statutory power and statutory duties and possibly a degree something in there that delineates and therefore limits as well and I think that can be done through statute don't have the detail yet we've got to work on that but I think that can be done I think if the commissioner has the power to raise some money and then provide some core funding to the delivery bodies that enables the commissioner to ensure because he controls the money to some extent that national priorities are delivered by the local bodies the local bodies however it must be free I think to pursue local priorities as well for which they can raise local money and we need to work out a system for doing that so the fact that the commissioner is able to core fund the delivery of national priorities creates that control mechanism down and I need to think through the detail but that's that seems to work the one thing that remains then is what happens if a local body fails just just as useless can happen I think we need to build into this some reserve powers reserve back to the commissioner don't at the moment have a clear view about how to do that but the sorts of things that we're thinking about is the reserve power to invite an adjacent local body to deliver national functions in an area that type of reserve power if necessary and it could be you know the statute could include significant provision whereby the commissioner can do certain things on the authority of Scottish ministers which keeps Scottish ministers in control so sorry that's not very detailed Jane has got a few things that she can add no I'm just going to add one further thought to that funding is a big driver as Andrew has indicated the other big driver which keeps coming through to me and all of this is data information and it seems that the amount of good information about stocks of fish is remarkably poor and one thing this proposed commissioner it seems to me must have is the power to require information about stocks at the moment district salmon fishery boards may collect information they may do it in different ways but they don't have to share it with anybody so our knowledge of stocks is really pretty poor so it seems to me that whole thing about commissioning the information and then collating it and making it publicly available is crucial in all of this and on that a lot of the decisions linked to the national strategy must hang but at the moment we don't seem to have that basic information can I just come back several people yes yeah yeah um just a suggestion um a model you might want to look at it wouldn't fit perfectly in relation to this is how the office of fair trading before it was done away with recently operated UK wide but the enforcement of trading standards legislation was done by local authorities and there were clear demarcation lines between the two it might be something that would give you a start it wouldn't be the solution but that kind of model might be worth just having a wee look at thank you Dave Graham day thank you convener um perhaps you've kind of half provided the answer and what you just said there about the cohesion of data and the difficulty of actually finding out what's happening out there but looking at sustainable management and conservation of stocks you'll be well aware that in an ongoing context there's a considerable variation in catching the release practices on rivers right across Scotland and I'm wondering if as yet you've come to a view in whether we would need perhaps a more consistent approach to catching release across the country if we if we were to get where we need to be well every river is different so and and I think it's important this is partly why localism is so important in this equation every river is different I think it's unlikely that so in the sense of of having a standard catch and release policy for scotland I think that's unlikely to be necessary or at any rate however I think we are clear that that more generally we are going to have to come up if we're talking about if we just focus specifically on salmon for a moment we are going to have to come up with a system that enables right across scotland the control of how many salmon are killed in any given system and in particular the control of how many salmon are killed in the first six months of the year because the spring salmon are there are not so many of them come back they they have a very high value to local economies to hotels and so on because people come and fish for them in a period of the year when there's not much else doing in terms of business so they're economically and socially very important to scotland so in particular for that first six months period I think we will come up with a a system a quota system or something I'm not quite certain when we might I mean one example would be we might we might propose that it's illegal to kill a salmon in the first six months of the years unless you have a license to do so and then licenses could be issued to netting stations if the scientists think that's safe but I I do want to do a lot more detailed work on that. I'm going to ask a couple of questions myself and then Nigel Dawn and Claudia to follow on. Back in 2005 the Scottish executive proposed in a document that led eventually to the aquaculture and fisheries bill and so on that they favoured a unitary authority model for salmon trout and coarse fish and indeed we have this situation where there's district salmon fishery boards and there are foundations or trusts. What's your take on the way forward with regard to those two separate entities? I think we're very clear already on that that the local whatever they're called let's call them local fisheries management organisations they will be all fisheries management organisations we're very clear about that and the reason I say that is because on our visit to the D the D trust was able to access considerable sums from the SRDP for matters such as planting trees to create double shade to encourage salmon to spawn in the river far up as we all visited and you talked about there being central funds and funds that are able to be raised locally. How does the likes of the SRDP match up with those two concepts? I would anticipate that in some ways as happens now a local fisheries management organisation would wish to apply to the SRDP for habitat management measures of and that's already happening so I don't think we would be proposing any change there actually that's happening and many of these trusts are doing really first class you know you go down to the tweet and you see some really excellent work being done down there for example. Have you any calculations about how much SRDP money has been accessed by trusts and can you do so? We could do that but given that we're trying to look forward here and given that the SRDP is changing it's going to be difficult to to relate that I think the important thing is that we set up a structure that can access SRDP in whatever form it takes and it's important that what we recommend is a structure that's going to be fit for purpose for for some decades and therefore part of what's driving our thinking is how do we design a system that is sufficiently flexible to cope with change there may not be an SRDP intention this time there may be something else and we need a system that's that's sufficiently flexible to deal with that kind of opportunity. Interesting just as a final point at the moment it comes to my attention as I have various salmon fishery boards in my constituency inevitably there is a kind of view on the one hand of the riparian owners and the view of angling clubs which perhaps are seeking more access to rivers and clearly the issues about the economic value for the local authority for the local area are perhaps tied up with the ability to have more access for more popular fishing have you encountered that so far in your evidence taking? There clearly are significant access issues in some parts of the country but I wouldn't want members to go away with the impression that that's universal it's not there are some very good examples around the country where access is available to anybody at very low cost including access for salmon fishing I should say however there are significant issues to be addressed by the review if we are serious about increasing participation in Scotland if we're serious about in particular bringing more young people into this sport we need to address access issues which are not just about geography they're also about particular days of the week as well so that's very much in our sights I'm not going to give you answers at the moment because I don't have them we're picking up a lot of really good suggestions some of which are really quite radical and we need to work through the unforeseen consequences before we come to recommendations. Nigel Don followed by Claudia Beamish. Thank you very much convener and good morning colleagues as the MSP who actually represents the aforementioned Montrose I have some knowledge of the difficulties there but I'd like to come back to the structural issues because clearly one of the issues about netting anywhere is that the fish which are caught are not just going up the river which happens to be nearest but actually the whole coast might be a considerable period and much of that is actually my constituency but that's not really the point in structural terms I suspect that gives I suggest that gives you a problem because it just doesn't follow that any netting operation anywhere around our coast is automatically particularly relevant to the very local fisheries board and I'm wondering whether you've given any thought as to how you structurally you might deal with those two perhaps orthogonal issues. Yes that's absolutely correct the mixed up fisheries are a particular challenge and we don't have enough science at the moment to really manage them well. That said, Marine Scotland at a national level is already doing some very good science on mixed stock genetic sampling to try and understand what's happening. I don't think the structural issue conflicts with that because government at a national level already undertakes research into aspects of salmon particularly offshore and local mechanisms already undertake research and data collection at a local level that already works and I don't think that needs to change particularly. The challenge will come when as I think we probably will need to we will want to set quotas on licence for these sorts of fisheries. If you don't know exactly where the fish are going or where they're from, how do you know what quotas is said and so clearly a new commissioner's office one of the strategic priorities for the ministers I would suggest would be to get that science done so that we can deliver that and I think that's already happening I think ministers already made it clear to Marine Scotland that that's a priority but but as the science gets better we will be able to get better at setting quotas for these these things and I don't think scientists tend to there's always a tendency among scientists to say you can't do it until it's perfect. I'm not sure that I'm persuaded of that argument I think we can do something which isn't perfect but is better than where we are and I think our recommendations will be couched in those terms so here's what you could do for the next five years here's what you could do over the next two decades. Can I agree with your view of science as a science scientist who became an engineer I mean tolerances are absolutely what you have to work with and and often your data isn't very accurate you just have to live with that unless you can improve it but I'm still interested I guess in the structural issue of how you manage operations which I feel like if I can do it diagrammatically that's the fish that are being mithied anywhere are going up the coast whereas the fish that are being angled are going up a river and because those are different operations and they're different stocks which is right to say I'm mixed how do you how do you manage that? I don't think there's a big structural challenge in there in that I think you have to set any kind of quota setting if we're going to go down a road of controlling culls and then issuing licenses or quotas to cull fish salmon or any other kind of fish it is almost certain that those quotas or those licenses will have to be issued nationally I think it's very hard to see how one could issue you'd get into all sorts of conflict of interest issues quite apart from anything else and as you rightly say you've got you know fish that that are not a one so I think I think the issuing of quotas if we go down that road would have to be done as part of the national structure and that's doable we already have within Scottish Natural Heritage and Marine Scotland and within SEPA licensing functions for all sorts of other licensing issues so the marginal cost of adding one if you've got the science is not that great. I'd like to identify myself with the remarks of our convener in relation to participation in fisheries which was going to be a question but I'm pleased that the convener raised that I'm wondering that relation what opportunities you have had or will be able to make to connect with local communities beyond the fisheries boards to to find out what the interest is taking your point that there is good practice as well as some exclusive practice so that was my first question I suppose the other is about inclusion of fish we were I was a bit embarrassed as as one of the committee when we were looking at the aquaculture bill to find that I hadn't really thought very much about the course fishing and and that aspect of it and and that's from the people point of view but also the protection of fish beyond beyond the the salmon and the sea trout for which I am actually a species champion but and I'm worried about it as well but really just wondering about that broader issue we are we are heavily involved in consulting with the assorted industry but there are lots of different bodies in the sport so there's this course there's course fish bodies there's bodies devoted to pike there's bodies devoted to grailing and and I've I've found them very effective actually at articulating different local interests in different parts of the country so that's worked fairly well we have not yet engaged that well I think with local authorities committee councils even in so far as we have time we will try and do that as well but my impression is that the these lead bodies do a pretty good job there isn't any question in my mind that a big part of the increased participation will originate in places like you know Scottish canals of which I happen to be chairman so I'll just declare that but but Scottish canals has just launched a new programme with the course angling body to promote getting kids out on the canals fishing for course fish and that is leading to troubles because there are parts of our community that like to eat carp and things like that and so they go out on the canal with nets which are actually illegal so they they come that you then get into issues about policing not I don't mean police in the sense of police scotland but but how do you deal with that so one of the work streams that we are pursuing at the moment is the whole business of well how do how do you actually ensure adherence to wild fisheries legislation with with very modest resource there's a bailiffing things and so on but there are I was in there last night and I was in Strathclyde the night before fantastic examples there of voluntary bailiffing going on now if we can get that better coordinated with proper national licensing national training we we can feed into other agendas their employability and things as well so this this this can potentially take us into a lot of really interesting areas and convener if I may just briefly in in relation to any concerns about conflict between different groups such such as Netsman and Anglers or any other issues of conflict there have been quite interesting models put forward in relation to agriculture in terms of mediation and I'm wondering if in terms of your national structures and leadership whether you're considering anything in terms of opportunities for for mediation resolution in a positive way not yet I'm not at the moment persuaded it's going to be needed but fingers crossed I'm also involved I mean I'm also involved in the tenant farming reviews I'm very aware of that and I'm very aware of what the opportunities could be also very aware of the potential cost thank you convener if I can make two brief points and then put one question if I may I think it was Jane Hope mentioned the the the need to to gather better data and information in some regards I would just point out and I think in particular relevance to the sea lice issue that I raised earlier access to that data is extremely important as well I think and a lot of the work we did on this committee previously it would suggest that access to the existing data that does exist very detailed data on sea lice in particular populations is not that easily accessible by some of the bodies that I think would benefit hugely from having access to it so I would just make that point I would also hope I think Andrew Thin in your opening statement you mentioned alien invasive species and certainly I'm coming this is rather parochial point but in Loch Ken in my area where there was a very very strong thriving course fishery which was a very great importance to local economy um it has been virtually wiped out by as I can see nodding so you'll be well aware of the American signal crayfish issue for which the best advice available from snh frankly seems to be um that they are handing out pamphlets advising course fishermen to make sure they wash their gear thoroughly before they go home while these animals spread up to two miles every night um and so I I hope you will be able to give that some considerable thought the impact of alien species on on our course fisheries in particular um the question I wanted to put to you um is is quite simply this how do you envisage guaranteeing the independence of a single commissioner appointed and answerable to Scottish ministers independence would be quite important well we have a work stream to try and to find more clearly the legal status and duties and powers and so on of that commissioner um the extent to which that commissioner needs to be fully independent of the government of the day I think is is is one that needs to quite a lot of thought this is about elect democratically elected governments being able having the tools to ensure that their priorities whether that's about international agreements or policy priorities can be delivered so in that sense the fact you know just as well for example I was chairman of Scottish natural heritage for many years it is an arms length body it gives good robust independent advice people don't always like it but we do um I was however appointed by Scottish ministers uh reported to Scottish ministers and could be dismissed by Scottish ministers at the drop of a hat and that seemed to me an entirely reasonable position because I wasn't elected they were um I would anticipate that it would be something fairly similar um arms length yes but but not in the independent in the sense that the commissioner could go and do something that that there's a democratically elected government felt was not a priority could I just follow that up with one one thought um which is that might it not be well would it be worth considering a model whereby the commissioner is actually you mentioned being democratically elected is democratically elected by the boards by the local boards over which he or she would have authority to deliver the national priorities and I don't argue with the need for some organization to be able to deliver national priorities and indeed international commitments um I can absolutely understand where that's coming from but I wonder if that's not a model that might be worth considering certainly considerate um it's a very interesting idea hand occurred to me um I heard it here first I will certainly consider it um I can just hear voices saying that's not democratic what about all the people who are not involved in these local boards but but but yes let's think about that I'll leave it with you thank you in that case I've got another question at the moment um we've experienced of course rivers which uh do restocking and other rivers which do not and uh this is in terms of salmon of course and it's quite important to see the variables that there are in terms of uh the impacts on these geographically and so on um how much have you taken that into account when you're thinking about uh the way in which uh the these rivers should be managed given that science would suggest that these things are possible um that science suggests also that uh they've been successful on some places and do you see a place for your recommendations to include uh remarks about restocking or know it no I I don't think it it would be wise for the review to go into the detail of how to to manage fisheries at the local level um I think we need to set up structures uh which are capable of deriving good robust science and then making evidence-based decisions that's very important and that on that particular issue you get conflicting advice as you will be well aware um from from from from scientists the important thing I think is that local delivery bodies are free to set their priorities um and raise money and get on and do things on the basis of decent advice and if they choose to stock they should be free to stock subject to you know car licenses and all the rest of it um and if they choose not to stock they should be free not to stock I don't think that's something that one should be dictating Jane Hope explained a little about some international comparators of management um do you have any international comparators on stocking or not I'm afraid I don't I don't have enough knowledge myself um but we did um ask some of the advisors to the panel to just have a look at experience elsewhere we were particularly interested in structures and funding so I'm afraid on on the details of how things were managed but but the arguments are much the same in Ireland, New Zealand, Canada it's all about how do you get that local versus national balance what's the role of government and how do you raise the funds I mean that seems to be what it boils down to and I'm assuming you don't want to get into that now but those are the sorts of issues that we've been looking at okay are there any further questions at the moment yes I just wanted to expand a little on the restocking issue that you raised convener and again I'm going to be rather political in the example I'm going to use because I have a situation in the constituency I think it is beginning to calm down but where the local fisheries trust um and the a particular angling association on the river Cree um open warfare might be going a little bit too far but there was considerable disagreement about the restocking policy being carried out by the angling association um and real bad feeling between two organizations that should have been working to the same end and and we'd all be a lot better off if they were and I just wonder whether in I can I think it is right that there should not be a sort of national you will stop that river um I think that should be the sort of local decision that is made locally um but I wonder whether you'd envisage a sort of role of arbitration sort of thing for a commissioner in a circumstance like that um and this takes us back to the media point mediation point as well um I do hope that if we can come up with a structure of local delivery organizations that are constituted in a properly inclusive manner the level of disagreement will tend to die down because people will have confidence that they've got a voice in those bodies and those bodies are if not fully democratic at least are inclusive in the way they're they're led so you won't have a situation where you've got a fisheries board and a trust trying to do the same thing in the same piece of water you know one delivery body with a board that by and large people are confident is inclusive and representative and that's the challenge for us is to make that happen um I will think about the question of whether the commissioner needs powers to mediate or whatever it's a useful it's a useful point although one can easily envisage a situation arising where squabbles would then become easier in a way because you would say well we'll have a squabble over that and then we'll just hand it to him is it sometimes quite good if people have to sort their own problems it'll be an interesting measure of your success if the situation on the Korean five years time is looked upon as part of history put that one down as a marker um perhaps a final question i'm hopeful but uh you never know there may be other people who have memories being jogged uh Graham day so i don't have the other questions to an observation i following up like ferguson's previous suggestion about the commissioner being elected uh by the the local organizations they would of course i suggest be the risk of considerable turnover on commissioners if that were the case see if we might wish to consider that i will it's an interesting suggestion i haven't thought about it i will certainly think about it my my instinct has been from day one to to look at a model where democratically elected governments have a mechanism and that's your democratic channel thank you okay i'm that's a good introduction to the subject very i'd like to thank andrew and jane for their thoughts at the moment developing issues there and with that i'm going to formally close the meeting at this point and next week on the 28 of may the committee will take evidence from the land reform review group on its final report and consider the committee's annual report