 Fy goleun gyda'r 27、27 gan eiogaeth i ddechrau Imbiarramic Cymru i Llandor Fórm, mae cyntaf o gymryd mor Osgoldon, Peter Chapman a'i ddawb i gynnig oedd. Fawr yma ar ein gyfliniadau yng Nghymru, rwy'n gweithio i gweldais unrhyw gynnigrwydd ac roedda yr eich gweldydd yn ei ddefnyddio yng Nghymru yw yw bod ei wneud yn amlwg y brosleddau i yw rhaid, at ddweud yng nghymru gael yi ei ddefnyddio y gynhyrchu. The first item on the agenda is for the committee to consider whether to take item 4 in private. Are we all agreed? The second item of business in our agenda today is to hear evidence on the wild animals travelling in circuses Scotland Bill from the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform and Scottish Government officials. Welcome to you all. We're joined by Rosanna Cunningham, the Cabinet Secretary, Grant Campbell, the Bill Officer, Angela Lawson, Andrew Rose, who is a regular visitor to the committee at the moment on this issue, and Beverly Williams, the animal welfare team leader. Unless you have any specific to say, Cabinet Secretary, I think we'll just move straight to questions. Kate Forbes. My first question is that it's been about three years now since the consultation on whether wild animals should be banned in travelling circuses was held. In that time period, has there been any new scientific evidence or have public views developed further? There's been some opinion polling in that period. There was a YouGov poll in 2016, which asked a thousand adults for their views on different animal welfare issues. Now, obviously, this is not being brought under animal welfare heading, rather it's an ethical heading, but it does give some indication. 76 per cent of respondents were in favour of this particular ban. I'm aware that there's a current online petition that has received over 2,000 signatures in support of the proposed prohibition. I'm not sure that you would call that scientific, but as an indicator of where public opinion is, it's probably fairly indicative. Also, because we're bringing the bill forward on ethical grounds rather than welfare grounds, in a sense it's not so much the science and the evidence around welfare issues that becomes important here. It's a different question. Yes, there is a gap between consultation and the introduction of the bill. Really, some of it just reflects the time it takes to draft bills and decide on the process by which they're going to go into a programme for government, so really that's where we are. So there's not been any significant changes really in that three-year period? Not really. I mean, you could argue that the UGF poll is probably quite a strong indicator that what we consulted on, what we understood to be the position in the Scottish public, is in fact the position in the Scottish public. Volume of correspondence on this issue has often been referred to as a factor in justifying the legislation. So how do levels of correspondence from the public on this issue compare with correspondence received on other issues, and how has that been quantified? Well, we've only counted it between January 2014 and May 2016. There were over 150 bits of correspondence on the matter and five parliamentary questions as well in that period of time. Since then, we've had more on this than we've had on animal sanctuaries, rescue centres, re-homing activities and the breeding and dealing of animals as well. This exercises people's communication in a different way, and therefore they're more inclined to want to communicate their views on this. Okay. Thanks. Moving on. Richard Lyle. Yes. Firstly, can I remind members that I am the cross-party convener for the showman's guild Scotland? I don't remember all the showman's guild, but I can also say I support the intentions of this bill but have reservations on really how it can be implemented. Good morning, cabinet secretary. I asked two council officials at our sixth June meeting if they had any concerns with this bill. In evidence to the committee, Andrew Mitchell, Edinburgh Council said of the bill and I quote, it strikes me having read the bill and listened to the evidence so far it will perhaps not be easy to enforce as it has been suggested. David Kerr from Argyllun Bute said that he also shared a lot of the concerns. Last week I had a work experience pupil and Angus Holmes, and he contacted every council in Scotland to garden their position in wild animals and travelling circuses. Most councils, to my knowledge in Scotland, either have a ban against circuses with wild animals or will refuse them a licence on their land. My point is, why do we need this bill if most councils oppose wild animals in circuses? First of all, you have used the word most, not all. If we leave it simply up to local authorities that is one of the things that happens is that you get differences between local authority and others and that then becomes confusing as to what exactly the position might be. Local authorities may also choose to apply things slightly differently, which again introduces a different variation around and across. We have worked with local authorities on this, we have worked with COSLA, so it is not the case that we have not been taking account of the local authority position. We think that this is the right thing to do from a national level to provide the kind of clarity to all of those who are involved in this business that Scotland will be a no-go area for wild animals and circuses. I have two other questions, convener. Who is intended to be covered in this bill? Anthony Beckwith, in his evidence to this committee, stated that he believed that show is not a circus. He stated in a quote that it is called an evening with lions and tigers. He stated that he asked a Government official to clarify whether it would be covered under the definition and the official responded, I do not know. That was his evidence, I do not know if that meeting did take place. Do you intend to tighten up this legislation to cover shows without circus in their title? Just from a perspective of the use of the word circus, as somebody whose background is in law, overly defining does not help because you then presume a whole list of things that are not in that definition, so sometimes overly defining does not help. A commonly used notion of circus is one that would be any challenge, would be one for the courts to consider. The notion that you would have a commonly used word to describe a performance will decide whether it is not a circus. It does not have to be called a circus to be a circus, and arguably not everything that is called a circus would be of the nature of some of the conversation that we have had. I am conscious of the Cirque du Soleil, for example, which is calling itself a circus, but it is not a circus in the traditional sense of the word. I think that that is the right way to do this. I am going to ask Andrew to come in here because of the specific discussion that you were opening your comments with. To be clear on that, the dictionary definition along the lines of circus is a company of acrobats, clowns and other entertainers, which gives performances typically in a large tent. A travelling circus would be easily understood. If you look at the example that Mr Lyle has given before we come to a conversation that it did or did not take place, there are no acrobats or clowns, but it is former circus animals. This organisation has applied for a circus licence in England, and it is run by circus proprietors. A wide definition there of what a circus is, but it might not capture this. Do we accept that? It would be what people would commonly understand. I think that, and I defer to the lawyers here so that we can hear from Andrew and then the lawyers here. My view would be that if you are putting on the kind of performance that is being discussed this evening with business, I am pretty sure a court would be likely to call that a circus or define it as a circus, even if it is not so much a dictionary definition. It is a commonly understood thing. That is a normal thing to do in law. We are not proposing anything unusual in terms of not defining it too closely. The minute you start listing things in a definition, for example that, it gives rise to the questions that you are asking. If there are acrobats, does that make it a circus? Is a circus to lay properly calling itself a circus if it does not have animals in it and things like that? Absolutely. The cabinet secretary is right here. Where you have a definition that lists a specific thing, for example a circus is a performance including acrobats and clowns, organisations putting on a circus-like performance will merely omit the clowns and acrobats and keep everything else as a circus in order to avoid the definition of circus. What we need to do here is to ensure that things that look like a circus, walk like a circus, talk like a circus are considered a circus. Courts are very well versed in doing this and taking the ordinary interpretation of a word is something that courts do all the time. For example, in the equivalent English regulations that licence animals for use in circuses, they do not define the term circus. It is left to ordinary interpretation because a court knows what a circus is. The ordinary man on the street knows what a circus is and what we want to ensure is that circus proprietors do not omit one specific aspect of performance in order to avoid a very rigid definition of circus. As to the specific example here, Andrew may have comments, but it would turn on the facts and circumstances of the case, ultimately. If there was a performance that was more akin to something that you find at Edinburgh Zoo, which is a display of wild birds in an educational forum with zookeepers, that is very different from something that is performed in a ring with dressed up entertainers, with jokes, with laughing. Again, it is the nature of the performance, not the name of the performance. It will really depend on what an evening with lions and tigers is. I think that Anthony Beckwith has said what he thinks it is, but it would really be for a court to decide if his performance is in fact a circus. I understand that. I gather in former evidence that the definition of the circus would be the Oxford English Dictionary definition of the circus. That is quite specific. It does mention travelling companies, acrobats, clowns, etc. It lists those. Can you make the distinction between your general definition and what you have said on the record? It is commonly understood definition of circus. The courts will look at what is reasonable to describe as a circus, what is commonly understood. One of the reasons why that is done is that sometimes common understandings do change over time. You do not want to trap your legislation in a very specific period if the common understanding begins to change. That is why they phrase the reasonable man or the reasonable person is always used. That is again something that stays flexible so that reasonability can always be defined in a particular time and place and therefore you do not have to keep changing things. That is why you do not overly define in legislation. That probably opens the door to move to Andrew Vos to talk to us about this particular example and whether it would or would not be covered in your interpretation. First of all, I would just like to clear up the issue about what was said at the meeting that we had with the circus industry. We did agree that we would hold the meeting under the Chatham House Rules, so we would not attribute personal comments to what was said. But as it is being raised, I would just like to clear up the situation. I have discussed this with colleagues and I think that they have confirmed that at no time did I just say I do not know regarding whether this... I know that you did not say that. I did not name anyone. I thought that it might be fair to name anyone. I think that my name appears in the record, so that is what you did not say that, but I know that Anthony Beckwith did. The point was that what I may well have said that if I was being given examples of various types of show or enterprise, what I may have said was that I do not know exactly what your particular act entails, but then I would have probably gone to say that if it entails things that would commonly be understood to be a circus, then it would be caught by the bill. Regarding the particulars of the evening with Lines of Tigers or what I now understand is called Big Cats Live, in that case it is using former circus animals. It is run by circus proprietors, people who have been involved with circuses for all their life. I do not know exactly if it is performed or tend to in a circular arena, but it is a travelling show of some sort. Lions and tigers are, I believe, performing the sort of tricks or behaviours or examples of the sort of training that is given for circus performances are given. It is, I believe, licensed as a circus in England and it is also operated by somebody who calls himself the last lion tamer in England. I think that most people would agree that it is maybe more than just one clown shorter of a circus, it is actually a circus. Thank you. One last question, if you do not mind the convener. Some members of the public believe that animals should not be used in zoos, or fets, or gallas. Martin Burton, chairman of the Association of Circus proprietors of Great Britain, said again a quote, I am an animal welfareist too, however, once we start banning things, particularly on ethical grounds that will clearly spread. If it is not ethically right to have a wild animal in a circus, it is not ethically right to have a wild animal appear at a gala, shopping centre or a zoo. Therefore, cabinet secretary, is this the rocky road to banning reindeer at Christmas shows, banning zoos and wild life parks in all other shows that the public attend? No. Thank you. That was short and sharp. Emma Harper. Good morning everybody. I am interested in the ethics and the welfare of the animals, whether they are performing or being exhibited or displayed. A couple of weeks ago, I tried to tease out the difference between ethics and welfare, and it is difficult to separate them. I am curious about pursuing the ban on ethical grounds versus welfare grounds. I would like to hear your thoughts on that. The ethical grounds are looking at the concept of taking animals that are not domesticated animals, but wild animals. The use of the word is taming them, but it is effectively finding a way to coerce them into behaviours that are not natural behaviours and proceeding on that basis. It is kind of ethical that the animals may be well fed, they might be well looked after, they might not be some of the individual welfare grounds that you would look at, but it is a sense in which this is not the right way to manage wild animals. Domesticated animals are generally used in all sorts of different circumstances for all sorts of different reasons, but they are domesticated, they are accustomed to behaving in certain ways, they are not usually distressed, if they were distressed it would be a welfare issue, but they are not usually distressed. Dogs, people see, they like to please their masters, they like to do work, they like to run about. There are lots of animals in that category that are animals that are accustomed to working with human beings and that sets them apart. The ethics is around the use of an animal that is wild in nature, not a domesticated animal that is accustomed to living with human beings and working with human beings, and then finding a management method by which you coerce them to almost act against all of their better instincts. Welfare grounds would raise a lot of very specific issues and that could well have been quite difficult too because the welfare, as I said, the lines that tigers might be well looked after, they could be healthy, they could be not exhibiting actual distress, but the ethics of the situation leads us to the view that you should not be using animals like that in these circumstances. Welfare grounds you would need to have gone down quite a lot of detail, you would need a lot, off a lot of very detailed information about the actual circumstances and the investigation of that would be very difficult because some of these animals would be very well looked after, others would not be necessarily as well looked after. I thank you for that clarification because I am going down the lines of it is easier to define ethics rather than welfare. Is it just time that we stop having wild animals like tigers and lions in circuses for performance, exhibition, display and entertainment? Clearly we would not have had the manifesto commitment to do this bill if we did not think that that was time to seriously begin to look at that and that is why we have chosen to do it. But there are a whole lot of animals out there that are domesticated, accustomed to working with us as human beings, doing jobs right around the world, doing jobs for us and enthusiastically doing so. They are in a different category for that reason. Finlay Carson. Given that the impact of travelling is one of the three ethical concerns that we are given to justify the legislation why wild animals shouldn't be transported by circuses in Scotland, as long as they are not being used in performance, should the legislation not go as far to ban all travelling circuses whether they are performing or not? Sorry, I am not quite understanding that. Why would a travelling circus have animals if they weren't performing? The bill or the legislation is based on three ethical reasons. One of those is the impact of travelling. Why did a bill not prevent wild animals travelling in Scotland as long as they are not performing? One of the examples that we had was that circus animals wintered in the north of Scotland. The bill would not cover those. The legislation would not cover those. Why would that be? First of all, we are trying to ensure that we could manage this and get this through without overly complicating things. There are a number of issues around it because we have not got a general ban on the keeping or transportation of wild animals by members of the public or charitable or commercial organisations. Remember that this is about performance. The ethics are around performance here and not at this point, not necessarily about the travelling. That is where we just want to keep those two things separately. There are other reasons why wild animals are moved around. For example, they will go from safari park to safari park or whatever. We felt that if we began to go down into that level of looking at it it would become incredibly complicated. Some of the issues that you are already raising in terms of definition would become even greater. We think that some of the ethical arguments could be weaker around some of the issues that you are raising. Because we chose them to go down the ethics ground it was better to stick with the much stronger lines and deal with those. At the moment we are confident that what we have done in this bill is the right thing to do just now. That does not preclude coming back and looking at some of the other ethics issues around the use of wild animals. At present this is about the performance and their use in travelling circuses. Once you begin to explore some of the other things it becomes infinitely more complex. If animals are wintered here over a period of circus animals they are in a static situation. Their welfare considerations would be covered by the likes of the SSPCA going in there. As long as they are not performing, that is the rationale. Ethics does not apply. You are moving it into the welfare side of things. For welfare issues you would have to be much more careful about what you were looking at. You are into the situation as well because a lot of safari parks in the UK where people will move animals from one to the other and they are not performing when they get there. They are being moved and they are effectively static in a safari park so that their behaviours and lifestyle are much more akin to their normal wild existence than they would be in a circus. On the back of that the SNP manifesto committed to banning wild animals in circuses and it did not refer exclusively to travelling circuses so why does the bill not cover static circuses particularly from what you said that a number of ethical reasons used for justifying the banning of wild animals would also apply to animals in static circuses so we are looking at wild animals performing and that was one of the reasons you said you were looking at as part of the bill so why are you not covering wild animals in static circuses? Because there is a slightly weaker ethical argument around that, for example, if there was well-designed permanent accommodation in a particularly fixed location and the environmental surroundings that could be provided then there would be a weakened ethical argument as compared to the travelling circuses. I think that you did have some evidence during the evidence sessions that the situation is worse in a travelling circus as opposed to static circuses. It appears that you are in between because the first question that I asked the justification for not applying it to animals that were involved in circuses was that they could be housed in Scotland but they weren't actually performing bad ethically and your answer to this one is well actually it's all about the travelling because animals are in nice cages or whatever. But it's about both, really. It's about the travelling and where they are and a static situation will have reduced quite a lot of the... You would then get into definitions of what static means in these circumstances and overwintering animals is manifestly not a circus. They are being housed, they are being looked after but it's manifestly not a circus. If we were to go into static circuses then you would have to be looking at a much wider range of ethical issues around how the animals were being managed in a static environment. So this bill is about the travelling circuses and the use of wild animals in those circumstances. Your answer you just gave just doesn't stack up as far as I'm concerned because what you're saying is that in a static situation the accommodation is going to be better and all that's going to be better. So that's welfare, that's all about welfare that's nothing to do with ethics. The ethics of forcing these wild animals to perform is exactly the same and this bill is built on ethical issues rather than welfare issues but your answer to the static thing was all about welfare. Your evidence veered into welfare as well I think the evidence that I quoted tended to talk about welfare too. I mean we've stuck to the travelling circuses because we think the ethical arguments are strongest there and I think when you move away from travelling circuses then the ethical arguments do become much more mixed with welfare arguments and then it becomes harder to tease out with two different things and it isn't as easy further away you move from the travelling circuses that the balance between ethics and welfare isn't just quite as clear. Those ethical arguments are based on public opinion and the surveys that have been done over a number of years about circuses what about public opinion on other forms of performance where wild animals are used what's the basis for that? I'm sorry what do you mean? What is public opinion on other forms of animal performance that use wild animals? I mean the you got off poll that I quoted was talking about circuses, not other forms I mean I'm not conscious of that any particularly major opinion surveys on other uses of wild animals I mean what sorry you'd have to give me some examples is this the things like the falconry displays and things like that? Cammons actually you've indicated the Government's intent to legislate on a wide range of other forms of animal performance when the time is right so this bill is on wild animals in circuses as loosely defined in common law as we understand it around 10 with or without acrobats whatever I'm trying to understand why you're taking that approach rather than the approach that's been taken in Wales which has been to take a more broader approach rather than a piecemeal approach and look at other forms of animal performance the basis for you as I understand it focusing in on circuses there is an overwhelming public concern about circuses so I'm asking you what are the public concerns about other forms of animal performance whether that's raptor shows or reindeer or anything like that I'm not conscious to be honest Why focus on this one? There is I mean there's I'm not aware of any equivalent to the opinion polling exercise Right okay I'm just kind of being reminded that I mean there isn't opinion survey work along the same line so there's very clear questions asked in terms of circuses but not anything else and the letters that I referred to earlier again were about circuses one of the things we want to think about doing is encompassing some of the other issues in secondary welfare legislation which would be under the 2006 legislation and that will deal with some of the zoo licensing stuff bringing it up to speed and all the rest of it so that's being thought about in terms of a statutory instrument in context of 2006 and of course that's the animal health and welfare act and it's back again to the difference between welfare and ethical grounds and the public opinion on this is clear we don't have obvious concern raised by the public on some of the other issues that might be looked at I mean I'm not aware of anything about some of the other displays that might go on Wouldn't it have been easier just to ask the public what their views are about a range of incidences where wild animals are used in performance and then you would have then had an indication of whether circuses was the top ethical consideration or something else was the top ethical consideration I don't think the YouGov poll was ours I don't think the YouGov poll was ours I mean we did a consultation was around circuses so all of the information that we've got is directed towards circuses the YouGov poll was interesting because it talked about a range of other animal welfare issues and this one was a specific question asked within that but we've not gone out and done opinion poll surveying when it comes to the statutory instrument there will be further work done around that to see what people's views and concerns are on some of those other ancillary issues but keeping in mind that that's a statutory instrument in the context of welfare law rather than ethics so that I'm sure we could have asked but that would have been I think the further you go out there the more you get the confusion between welfare and ethics this one is an easier one we think to deal with but if YouGov had asked a different question it might have given a different basis they asked a question about wild animals and circuses just to get a feel for this what sort of timeline would you be working to roughly in terms of bringing forward that secondary legislation? absolutely no idea because we've got no idea what the impact of Brexit is going to be on our legislation as well so I can't give you any that's something that we would be looking to to think about doing but I can't tell you when it becomes possible to do it can I just explore to the issue about the definition of what a wild animal is are you content that as the legislation is drafted it captures all the categories you want to and I'm thinking particularly of the argument that's been advanced by some 4th generation circus animal may not display the behaviours that they ought to or might are you content you've got this drawn tightly enough? I think as much as one possibly can I think there's a fairly again clear understanding that it doesn't matter how many generations of lions that you have a dedicated animal you may be able to tame an individual lion I'm not sure at any stage how much anybody would trust that taming process implicitly I've seen some remarkable footage that suggests that in some cases you might be able to but I don't think anybody would be in any doubt that lions, tigers, leopards whatever are actually wild animals you know all animals whether wild or domesticated are capable of bearing their ancestral teeth sometimes literally but we're aware of the difference between domesticated and wild we know a domesticated animal when we see it and interact with it as opposed to straightforward wild animals Is there perhaps a need and guidance that we are what isn't covered by this legislation I'm thinking of things like birds of prey camel racing, llamas all the examples that have been given to us Is there a need and guidance? The minute you list what isn't covered by definition you open up the door to anything that isn't on that list and that's the problem with the defining and again you would expect the courts to apply understanding in these circumstances which is what the courts do on a daily basis throughout all bits of legislation that are ever passed I mean if you start listing animals that are definitely excluded and then oops you've missed one that's a loophole that you've built in and this is the problem with the definition OK, Chlory Bimash Thank you, Covino, good morning Cabinet Secretary and officials Could I ask please about the discretionary nature of the obligation on local authorities to enforce the bill and whether a more statutory arrangement could make it more robust and following on from that the lack of provision that would enable local authorities to prevent a circus from operating while they investigate and report a matter to the procurator fiscal or to obtain records from the operator and this was highlighted by local government officials who came before us and their concern was that by the time something had been assessed as to whether it should go forward through the courts that the circus may have moved on and indeed possibly gone abroad I wonder if you have any comments on those issues First of all I'm being reminded by Andrew that we will be producing guidance to local authorities as part of this so they're not entirely going to be left adrift, we've also been talking to COSLA about all of this What this bill does is it pretty much uses the 2006 Health and Welfare Act as a way of creating an offence and giving powers of enforcement so it's based on that same model it's not different in that sense to what is already in existence that's basically because we don't want to overburden local authority we expect that a local authority would be able to ascertain if a wild animal was being used a local authority inspector would then have powers under the bill which they would be able to use so the bill again as I've indicated mirrors the 2006 powers it was felt that there shouldn't be a greater duty of enforcement on wild animals in circuses than the general welfare requirements under the 2006 act we're taking these two things as commensurate rather than one gysumping the other and the bill does also allow Scottish ministers some flexibility to appoint inspectors as well as local authorities so it wouldn't just be up to local authorities to appoint inspectors if there were local authorities that we thought were perhaps not there is a power in the bill for ministers to appoint an alternative inspector in terms of the reporting to the fiscal or obtaining records we believe that the current enforcement powers are proportionate will provide a clear and effective talent it does seem from your evidence that none of the big licensed circuses, the ones that exist in the UK or the bigger European circuses are likely to ever tour with wild animals in Scotland as a result of this so we believe that the current powers are sufficient for those purposes it was highlighted because the travelling nature of the circus might be appropriate to consider in secondary legislation or guidance the power to prevent the circus operating while the investigation was taking place which is something that was highlighted by the local government officers I think our view is that that would be tipping the balance into a much more onerous set of circumstances there is a policy aspect and a legal aspect here and obviously there are different types of enforcement regimes that you can put in place but we have opted for here to have a significant offence provision without some sort of fixed penalty notice or compliance notice letter regime because we need a significant deterrent there are no current travelling circuses in Scotland with wild animals so what we need to do is not to have a system of easily administrative letters that can go out to circuses because this is not an offence that's going to happen on a regular basis we need a significant penalty attaching to this offence to deter people from coming and that's why we have opted to go with the offence, the significant penalty and a prosecution for a criminal offence rather than a mere compliance notice or the option of a fixed penalty notice which could lead to issues of decriminalisation we want the big ticket offence effectively as a deterrent value right, thank you and could I just also ask you cabinet secretary David Kerr from Argyll and Bute highlighted a concern and I quote that the ethical basis for the legislation could make it easier for a defendant to defend themselves and I just wondered if you had any comment on that every case will be argued on its own individual merits I think it's a fairly clear and straightforward thing for a court to consider if they know that the legislation is designed on ethical grounds that's how the court will look at it we don't believe it makes it any more difficult to enforce on one view it's possible the welfare offence would have been more difficult to prove because that would rely on expert evidence of individual animal suffering as opposed to the more broad ethical arguments that will be argued in terms of a court I was going to ask you about the definition of circus and lack of clarity around that in relation to enforcement that you covered in your earlier remark so thank you any members have any further questions no cabinet secretary thank you the committee will obviously come to a view on the strengths and weaknesses of the bill in due course thank you and your officials for your time today I'm going to suspend for five minutes to allow for a change in officials and for a comfort break welcome back to this meeting of the environment climate change and land reform committee and our committee officials on a general update on her portfolio can I welcome back the cabinet secretary Keith Connell the deputy director of natural resources Chris Stark director of energy and climate change and Mike Palmer the deputy director Marine Scotland unless you want to say general cabinet secretary we'll just move to questions to kick this off on the subject of the impact of Brexit is Dave Stewart good morning panel obviously Brexit's on all our headlines currently I'm interested in finding out what work the Scottish Government is carrying out preparing and planning for Brexit well it's a very great deal of work being undertaken as you might imagine we are as you can expect pretty much continuing to press the Westminster Government on its plans but more importantly to press for better engagement what we're currently involved in doing and I may say that I've actually now written to yourself convener four times most recently 14th of June in terms of this issue we've also had a debate in the chamber and I did have a brief meeting with Michael Gove the new minister on 22nd of June impressing on him the desire for us to have a proper schedule of meetings that aren't unilaterally cancelled when it's appropriate but I think it's you know we've obviously as a Government set out detailed proposals they're on the record I won't go into them in a great deal of detail there's an enormous amount of working going on within the civil service amongst officials to try and map the potential impact of this this portfolio and the rural economy portfolio are probably the two most by what is happening and the outflow from the great repeal bill and trying to try to estimate the impact of that within within our work is actually a huge job and is actually now taking up the time of quite a lot of officials as you can imagine but we are working across the two portfolios to make that proper assessment and you know that's got to be both policy and financial which is the other aspect of this we we are trying to at the moment assess the impact of this on the Government work going forward but we're still in the dark really as to how that is going to progress which is why I'm a little bit cautious when I'm asked about future proposals and timescales for statutory instruments and things like that because we're just not quite certain how this is going to roll through the remainder of this parliamentary session I appreciate cabinet secretary and panel it's very difficult to answer some of these questions the predictive powers of the brands here to work out what is happening from day to day but have you looked at issues such as a risk register let me give you an example on the structural funds SNH rightly have used high amounts of rural development funding under pillar 2 within their organisation we could face the scenario that we wouldn't have fully funded structural funds post 2020 do you have an effective register to say if this happens this would be the effect on our budgets and our activities is it that level of detail or is that more at the macro level of the department we are having to look at it at that level of detail and make in some cases individual decisions about some of the things that we have to prioritise why I said there's both a policy and a financial impact of this that has to be looked at there's a lot of vital support comes in from EU funding and without any kind of certainty as to what the consequences will be post Brexit on that it makes it extremely difficult to manage it in this particularly over this period where some of the things might be open to applications but we don't know quite what the longer term impact is going to be and that we think is having an impact on some of the decisions that are being made by people in terms of what to apply for just as a small example there's an agri-environment climate scheme which last year wasn't taken up in the way we had expected it to and we think it's because people were not confident that it was going to roll through and over the longer period we've now achieved the ability to make that commitment so the new scheme will open in January but I've given six months advanced warning of that but that's the kind of thing almost bit by bit by bit we look at each and every one of these to try and work out where are we going to be post, well, 2019 at the outset depending on how things go My final question and you touched on this earlier is about the effect on staffing the same way you can't spend a pound twice you can't spend the staff twice if they're being utilised to do Brexit work they're not doing the day job what's the effect that's having on that the other example I'm giving I heard from Spice earlier that DEFRA have just advertised 40 new posts to deal with Brexit is that something you're looking at? I'm not the right person to ask, it wouldn't be my decision about numbers to be recruited into the civil service I'm sure all of the officials that are here would be very grateful if we were to hand them over the equivalent but if they were taking on 40 you'd be looking at about 4 here so it's probably not just quite as dramatic as it sounds in reality yes, they are working incredibly hard and a fair amount of their time is having to be taken up in those considerations but so far they've all performed incredibly well when it comes to the non-Brexit part of the portfolio so I'm confident that they are going to be able to maintain that going forward I'm saying that I don't want to constrain them too much if there are some areas where there's difficulties for example for Chris Stark he's having to at the moment think in terms of well will there be an EU TS or will there not be an EU TS we don't have any guidance whatsoever from anywhere the Westminster level about that so there's a bit of juggling has to go on but the juggling in a sense is also part of the day job for Chris I don't know if Chris wants to say anything about that I'm very briefly I suppose there's several parts to this and Ms Cunningham's entirely right I mean I would love to have 40 new posts if anyone would like to give them to me I'm not sure I'd use them all for Brexit however there's that Barnett consequential however I think there's a number of things that we're in we're in a planning phase at the moment so there's quite a lot of intellectual capacity being used up in the civil service about that I suspect that that will change as it becomes clearer quite how Brexit will pan out and here I suppose for the committee the interesting question is there are some parts of this portfolio and indeed the whole of the Government's agenda in general actually that will have different roles as Brexit unfolds so we are waiting to see the extent to which for example New Devol powers come to Scotland and there is therefore a requirement to put in place administration and policy posts there so at the moment it is mainly a planning thing and within the Scottish Government as a whole of the civil service we've been restructuring slightly to prepare but I expect more work later I suppose is the easiest way to describe it I find our conscious of the time committee is there if you're taking staff off their day job to do Brexit are you finding in the end you're going to have to ditch some other activities that you're currently doing because they can't do the job twice is the point made? Some of that will be my decision in terms of looking forward and then making decisions about what are priorities and what are not priorities and that isn't something I can fix now for the whole the remainder of the parliamentary session so we're constantly doing that I have a process the way I work is I tend to have short meetings with all policy teams about twice a year and one of the purposes of that is for me to see what they're working on what their priorities are and my understanding then that if I want them to do something else or if they're having to do something else there has to be a decision made about what is priority it wouldn't be for officials to take that decision it would be my decision to perhaps push something further down the list because of what was required the work that is being done as I indicated at the moment that's not the case where we're doing it I can see on the horizon that we may have to be in that place which is why I indicated in the earlier session that I couldn't say how and when the statutory instrument that we discussed then would be brought forward because clearly there could be all sorts of potential things that would have to take priority if we have to if we've got to deal with other things that are more important there is a as I indicated there's a team set up and they're looking right across the culture and marine forestry and obviously there's also going out beyond the two portfolios there's a lot of civil servants in a wide range of different roles who are supporting ministers on this particular bit of our day job because actually this is also our day job to try and manage this process okay thanks perhaps looking at where there's conflict in the workload for Chris Stark and yourself there's also the small matter of putting together a new climate and finalising the draft climate plan in that area we're going to move on to now Alex Burnett thank you very much cabinet secretary in the report the committee made on the draft climate page we made a number of recommendations and I'd just like to ask three very brief questions the first was transport and agriculture to be revised to show a great ambition I wonder if the cabinet secretary has any intention to increase those envelopes we're working through the various parliamentary recommendations at the moment I have noted the questions raised obviously the principal priority here has got to be to produce a plan which works towards an abatement of emissions across all sectors and that's 80 per cent by 2050 so we can achieve that in a variety of different ways but we've taken on board the questions raised about the two particular sectors and that will be taken into account thank you the second one is about the times model and maybe one for Chris, I know he's been very helpful in the transparency of the model I wonder if there's any more on future model runs and how the model is going to be made accessible it is being updated and David Stewart asked a question during the statement which I didn't immediately know the answer to but I gave him a note afterwards about has the model been run to take the EUTS out of the system and in fact it had been so in a sense it crosses over into Brexit preparation because the time is modelling Chris so we are constantly looking at it and we'll continue to use it so the current challenge for us is to update the model with revised data and then we'll plan to use it again throughout the year sorry is there some timescale for when the main timescale for us and the Christmas coming on this is the publication of the final plan thank you another couple of areas that I think the committee suggested might be looked at with another rerun was CCS and some of the assumptions around transport and model shift has there been any work done on those two in terms of the times model did you all answer yes there's been no specific work in those things but both of those issues are in play when it comes to future modelling runs I didn't hear that I'm so sorry there's been no specific analytical work to refine the analysis in those sectors but we'll look at both of those issues in future modelling runs using times I think it isn't just feed something in here, press a button and it all chunters out the other end in 20 minutes so actually making the model run is a bit more complex than that so obviously there's been one done without EUTS to see how that impacted so there will be other such runs done I don't know the extent to which the committee wants to be kept up to date on the model I'll pick up some colleagues that are a bit confused would this inform the final plan that's work does that qualify it it does to a degree to understand in view of the concerns that were expressed by the committee whether there will be I'm not naive about it I know it doesn't take 20 minutes to run which is why we didn't make suggestions about very many alternative runs but is there to be an alternative run as a convener without CCS and is there to be one on active travel which was a real concern for this committee I'll pick that up so that the final policy assumptions that go into the model will inform the final modelling run so I'm not to be obtuse about it but both of those issues are built completely into the modelling that we plan for the rest of the year final point was one of the recommendations was to establish a monitoring and reporting framework with the anticipated 12-month gap between the publication of a draft plan and the publication of a final plan I wonder if you could clarify what the implications of this might be and why this is happening and will there be a reporting framework? The 12-month gap and the monitoring plan partly we had a conversation about the balance between publishing and autumn and publishing into 2018 and 2018 allowed it to dovetail with the energy strategy and we thought that made more sense than publishing in much a few months earlier but then you would be a drift of the energy strategy which would be quite impactful in terms of what's here and in terms of the conversation we are and are still constantly getting feedback from stakeholders that whole section of activity hasn't stopped and we are also building on the work set out in the plan in respect of monitoring framework and officials are going to be in touch we're engaging with the committee on this particular issue to make sure that what we think would work is from their perspective the kind of thing that they would want to see and we will be back in touch with the committee to discuss how best to engage Parliament and parliamentary committees in that particular process of monitoring so we are looking at that not just in terms of the plan itself but how we move that forward and how Parliament contributes to that as well Can I take that? It's a yes, you are going to be establishing a monitoring and reporting framework I think I said at the outset yes but the point is that we are continuing to work on this we're working with the committee on climate change on it we're looking at how best Parliament can contribute to that so yes we are So what do you think the timescale for establishing that framework will be? Chris, I don't know whether or not you've got a specific timescale for that I do I mean I think it's essential that we have something at Companies of Final Plan and it sets out how that plan will be monitored so that's the milestone I have in my mind One of the other recommendations that came from all of the committees was that the Government looked at the scrutiny period for future iterations of the RPPs I suspect you would have to tackle that in the climate bill but I'm just looking for an indication on the cabinet secretary because I think she's indicated before she's sympathetic to this argument as to whether there would be something in the climate bill and what it might look like I am sympathetic to the idea in terms of the the scrutiny the various scrutiny reports have been helpful it is our intention to increase the scrutiny period for future draft climate change plans but I don't have a fixed period in mind and it would be helpful I think if committees fed back on some of that in terms of the way they think about how they work I certainly think the current timescales are too tight so allowing extra time would be helpful for everybody but obviously you don't want it to drift into a very long period of time either so some feedback from committees on this would be very useful but it is my intention to increase it and to to include that in the bill I'm sure we'll take up that invitation Claudia Beamish I was very pleased to see cabinet secretary that we understand that there will be a stronger role for blue carbon in the final version of the plan and I wonder if you could clarify for the committee any more detail of that and what the research implications might be for the next RPP The timing of the publication of the draft climate change plan meant that it was coming out before the work that was being done on blue carbon and obviously in February SNH did publish a report on this issue Marine Scotland is currently developing a research programme in conjunction with SNH and a number of academic institutes to build on the findings of the SNH report and the other research so the final plan will therefore have a focus on understanding of blue carbon and its potential so that will be one of the big differences between the original draft and the final plan so I don't know whether or not Mike, you want to add anything to that? Yes, simply to say that we have great aspirations for the potential there and we think that's a very promising partnership with SNH and looking forward to taking that forward Thank you Mike Russell Just to turn to the climate bill I think there's an increasing understanding around the world from different states of the need to meet the Paris agreement through setting zero carbon targets at state level Can you just explain the work that the Scottish Government is doing in the context of the bill to consider a zero carbon target for Scotland? The Committee on Climate Change didn't propose a zero carbon target either for the UK or for Scotland so as is normal, what we do is abide by the advice that we get from the Committee on Climate Change I think I've indicated that that would be an ambition but at present the bill isn't intended to design that into the future climate change targets I appreciate what you say about the UK climate change committee but when it came to the climate change plan a lot of the recommendations of the UKCC you considered found them useful contributions but then rejected so I'm interested to know given the international precedent that's being set on zero carbon targets how seriously you're investigating this as an option Well we're intending to increase the target to 90% that has been described as extremely stretching by the Committee on Climate Change but just at the limit of what is doable I'm not sure at this point opting for something which is widely perceived as simply not doable as an advisable thing to put into a piece of legislation that doesn't preclude if circumstances change this will be the second climate change bill I'm guessing between now and 2050 there will be other climate change bills at a certain point zero carbon may become effectively a doable target but we've taken the view that right now the 90% is about as far as we think we can reasonably commit to Why is that the case? What would be the impact of adopting a zero carbon target? Well it would roll back into some of the decision making that would have to be taken between now and then in terms of what we think is manageable and doable we believe that 90% is going to be tough without pushing further to what is effectively 100% Okay, let's move us on Peter Chapman Hi, good morning. I was going to ask something about the land reform bill specifically about the commission which is now in place and they are required to come forward with a strategic plan and programme of work within six months or three years and I was wondering what discussions you've had with the Land Commission on that and how the programme of work is coming along and whether it will be ready before September of this year and if so when you would likely approve it Well I've had informal discussions with the Land Commission but I've not yet had a formal conversation with them about the three years strategic plan or their programme of work one of the reasons we've set up the Land Commission is to ensure that they've got some freedom to go about their business without a constant ministerial eye over their shoulder they're currently developing their programme of work and those who've been following the Land Commission at all will know that they're conducting engagements around the country they've gotten themselves out and about and they've got a long list of places they're going to visit but they will in the terms of the 2016 act require to submit their plan or the programme of work to me before the end of September I would obviously need to take a little time to look at it but they are and I would see it in draft form so I would get a slightly advanced view on this I know that they're planning a land reform conference at the end of September and I expect what they would like is to have the ministerial approval and that's what I would be trying to do at that point if it comes up to me the night before the conference we may be struggling a bit but I'm assuming that that's not likely to happen but we are aiming at that target sticking to September and they've set up an annual conference at the end of September so everybody's gearing up and working towards that and I suspect it would be a disappointment to everybody including themselves if they weren't able to stand at the conference and have that as part of their big presentation OK, from that we can take it their own track we hopefully they're on track I wonder about the sums of money involved I mean the gratin aid allocation of 1.4 million I wonder how that was calculated and I believe they're looking at employing up to 20 staff how many have already been in place just now and how many are there still 20 is the plan to go to 20 there's a need to go to 20 well they've got 7 in place at the moment I think that the commissioners are being cautious about this understandably until they've completed work on the strategic plan because the strategic plan I suppose will then give them a clear understanding of what potential staffing they might need in the future and some of that money will also be used for consultation and external advice it's not all meant to be about staff so they'll be taking a sensible and cautious look at this and as I said seven at the moment I'm not sure if the most recent appointment is included in the seven or we'll make it eight I know there's one starting I think next Monday a new start next Monday so I'm not quite sure whether that seven includes that one or whether that makes it eight but that's where we are just moving on from that I would like an update on work in relation to the creation of a register of controlling interests on land and the creation of a right to buy land to further sustainable development how's that all coming together and how's that coming forward? I think I wrote to the committee last week about this the register of controlling interests the work is ongoing we did consult on outline proposals last September and in fact tomorrow there's going to be a factual analysis of the responses will be published tomorrow and again we'll be notified when that takes place so in a sense that work is just simply progressing and we have to liaise with the UK Government on this as well we've got to be careful not to impose requirements on companies and other legal entities that could result in double reporting the work is actually ongoing and from that respect things are working to plan our intention has been to lay the regulations in November this year again there's a question of the UK Government's legislative programme we need to look at what that is going to mean so I'll be writing to the committee with a further update once we've taken that into account on the other issue of the right to buy land for the sustainable development the introduction of that right to buy has been deferred and the reason for that was to allow the other right to buy of abandoned, neglected and detrimental land to settle in so we'll be carrying out some stakeholder engagement on this latter one the abandoned, neglected and detrimental land right to buy over the summer so the regulations in respect of that are likely to be laid sometime in autumn so we're quite away from looking at the one which you have raised we look at the appropriate time to bring forward that further right to buy at that point but again I'm conscious of the caution I've indicated about what time will be available for things Do you feel that the Brexit all the work around Brexit is impacting on that some of that work or not? I don't know, it isn't at the moment the point I'm making at the moment is we did make a policy decision to go first with the right to buy the derelict and neglected land and to proceed with that and that would be towards the end of this year it does take time to get these things sorted out what I can't say is whether or not the flow on from Brexit will impact on the timetable not just for this but for other things right across the board that is something that we can't I can't make a proper statement of okay just in the subject of completing the land register cabinet secretary if memory serves, public bodies are supposed to complete that by the 2019 but it's been suggested to us that local authorities aren't in any way compelled to do this and that some local authorities are not progressing this rate we might all have wanted I wonder if you have any sight of that and if there's any moves in the part of the Scottish Government to encourage them to participate in this process not aware of that not sighted on any of that so it would be interesting if you have indication or evidence on the record of that being the case it would be helpful if you directed us to that I think we have an intention to write to you on a number of subjects we won't cover today we can perhaps do that in that letter moving on Kate Forbes to ask a question about part 4 of the community empowerment act which was consulted on in March 2016 and which just for the record introduces a new provision for community bodies to purchase land which is abandoned and neglected or causing harm to the environmental wellbeing of the community could I ask if the cabinet secretary has any details on the next phase of consultation in terms of who will be consulted and whether the draft regulations will be public and when secondary legislation might be brought before the committee well I think we're on the verge of consulting I think the plan is to consult on that over summer and and that will include stakeholder engagement so we will be bringing people together the plan at the moment is to make and lay the regulations in late autumn so I don't know maybe in November or something like that all things staying stable, that's the plan but if there are more details around the engagement will it be the same stakeholders that were consulted in March 2016 in March 2016 it doesn't necessarily have to be that would be the core group that you would go back to for obvious reasons but maybe if there are others out there that members feel we ought to specifically reach out to them there's no harm in increasing that okay Claudia Beamish Cabinet Secretary could I turn the discussion to the Forestry and Land Management Scotland bill which I've been asked by the committee to be a reporter on the Wreck Committee for during the duration of this some bill and I wonder if you could clarify for this committee what's interesting in relation to plant health and land reform and climate change although we've stressed the need to mainstream the climate change aspects what involvement you've had in the development of the consultation for this bill well it's not my bill it's not a portfolio bill and the policy and consultation process is generally supported by Cabinet but it is clearly being taken forward by a different portfolio by Fergus Ewing the Cabinet Secretary and my involvement therefore in that sense is more peripheral and not as not as detailed as it might be if it was one of the bills that I was actually taking forward I'm conscious that there's a bit of an issue around some of the sections of it I think it's fair to say that I met the NFUS on Thursday and they didn't raise any issue with me on this so I'm not clear the extent of that of that concern the bill is about land management it's not about land ownership so it's a slightly different set of legislation it's supposed to complement land reform and community empowerment agendas and as I indicated I've not had any stakeholders flag up to me that they had any issues around this bill or have alerted me to any concerns that there may be so I'm not sure whether or not members of this committee have a different view having I only attended the session last week that's when I was asked to become a reporter for this committee but the section 13 does actually state that Scottish ministers must manage land mentioned in one of the subsections for the purpose of furthering the achievement of sustainable development but those definitions appear to be somewhat different to the land reform act as it now is and the community empowerment act so I think from that perspective and also from the perspective of the point that was also made in the committee in the Wreck Committee last week that there is the possibility of compulsory purchase of land and not only forestry land but other land in quotes that this might be something that this committee through myself could ask if you would have a look at as I indicated the bills about land management not land ownership principally and if you'd just let me come to that I'm trying to just work through the issues the definition of community body used in the bill is the one currently in law and already updated in the community empowerment act so it's using those same definitions the use of compulsory purchase is available as a backstop power and there are a lot of checks and balances provided through the legal procedure and the various policy guidelines in place as I understand it the approach is to enable Scottish ministers via the new agency that this is up to manage more than forestry land in the future so it does provide the potential to use the skills and experience of professional land management to manage other publicly owned land in the national interest so I think that perhaps as I indicated having met with NFUS last week this wasn't an issue that was raised perhaps it would be helpful if I had more tangible kind of concern expressed if there really is a concern but it's not coming through to me as an issue It may possibly be cabinet secretary that it's not coming through to you in the way it didn't come through to our committee until I went to the wreck committee and there is also the issue of from my reading of it my view is that the definition of community bodies is slightly different and I just have a concern as well about the compatibility between the what are now the two acts and this bill going through From my advice the definition of community body used in the bill is the one currently in law and updated in 2015 via the community empowerment act so you know if there's a factual kind of difference there between my advice and the reality and I can try and explore that Keith, do you want to come in? Really just to confirm that there's certainly no intention in the forestry and land management bill to have any difference in definition or meaning from the definitions in the existing legislation Right, well perhaps if I can write about that rather than take up more time with the committee at the moment that might be very helpful for our committee Thank you Thank you, Claudia Moving on, Finlay Carson MPAs and an example is that why Loch Karen wasn't protected in the original round of MPA designation and light off of that being highlighted what other locations might be vulnerable to dredging and how are you going about identifying those areas that may be identified as MPAs in the future if we see damage done by dredging and so on the MPA network MPAs are meant to show a number of different features the idea of an MPA isn't generally simply one feature and flame shell beds are in fact well represented in the existing MPA network there were five MPAs previously designated for flame shell beds I won't list them and all of them have a dredging ban already in place the MPA network was designed to be representative and not necessarily protect every example of every single thing so the five sites that were originally designated were considered to be sufficient representation for flame shell beds and at the time they were chosen it was considered that they were better overall value for the MPA network and that's why Loch Karen wasn't in the original selection but that network that existence of that network doesn't mean that all other examples obviously should be forgotten about and the other designation is the priority marine features and what we've said we intend to do is review that particular network of priority marine features to ensure that there's adequate protection beyond the MPA network and that we aren't dropping the ball in any particular one that's going to be a three-year project that's a lot of work involved in doing that and sorry to your project so there'll be a lot of environmental economic assessment of potential solutions around that the emergency work in terms of Loch Karen was to stop in its tracks any further attempt to do what was done was done there and members will remember that that has to come back again within two years of permanent designation obviously this will involve quite a lot of stakeholder involvement there will be public consultation and I'm talking about the priority marine feature review there will be a public consultation process and then I think marine Scotland's intended to make information about the project available once we've worked through all of the detail so that is the proposal that's how we're going to take this forward I think the experience of what happened at Loch Karen has made us take a step back and look at beyond just the MPA network about what's actually needed in some of these sites member will be aware that there's some pressure for a blanket ban around the coast but clearly that has enormous economic implications as well so we're trying to find the right balance here between those two those two things and that's why we want to do the detailed work that we've set out I think you've answered my next question which was sorry what further work are you going to do to manage the existing sites including inshore fishery bodies which could potential lead to the MPAs including fishery management tools to look at a more sustainable inshore fishery which in turn also has regard to MPAs yes and it is worth remembering and putting on record that there are a lot of different fishing industries and fishing interests here the dredgers are only one form the creelers are another the white fish producers association a third and they don't necessarily all agree with each other on every single aspect so there's a tendency to assume that the fishery sector speaks with only one voice when in actual fact it doesn't so there will again be a balance have to be managed between all of that I think it's going to be quite an interesting and possibly difficult exercise to carry out because speaking to them about fisheries management can often create some tension I think that there's certainly my example would be again loose bay where we've there's a ban on mobile dredging gear but there's an argument within some environmentalists and also fishermen that the lack of dredging in some places has actually reduced the potential for habitats for some fish and whatever and there needs to be a far more joined up approach between the fishing industry and the environmentalists to achieve a more sustainable fishery so that in an ideal situation I think we would be able to get everybody around the table and talk this through and I'm hoping that that's what we can get from this I think that that would be extremely helpful I could maybe just add as an illustration of that that the marine protected area strategy that we published just in the last few days is looking at how to do joint monitoring of marine protected areas with fishermen so what we're proposing to do using funding source from the European maritime and fisheries fund is to contract inshore fishermen to help us with that monitoring job and I think by doing that with the fishermen we will get a very good engagement with the fishermen a better mutual understanding between ourselves the environmental community and the fishing community about what the right proportion of balance is in terms of the monitoring and management measures that need to be put in place for the designated NPA so we really welcome this approach where we can use the assets that fishermen have to help us through the monitoring Angus MacDonald will come in here with a very specific point on Locke-Carran Thanks, convener. Yes, specifically with regard to Locke-Carran urgent marine conservation order there are, as you know, Cabinet Secretary issues with the detail of the boundary we're told the map is correct however there's an anomaly with regard to the stated written geographic boundary of the MCO so I'm concerned that there may be some confusion on the local fishermen's part regarding the boundary and the knock-on effect that that has on enforcement so can you advise us if marine Scotland officers are helping to provide clarity to the fishermen over the summer period given that it won't be coming back to this committee until after recess? We'll need to come back to the committee on that that's a very detailed question and I don't want to waffle an answer if there is a far more specific one that can be provided so we undertake to come back to the member and the committee on that You will take on board the concern that there is an anomaly there that could cause confusion We're on anomaly so let us go back and have a look at that Okay, thanks. Cabinet Secretary, when your officials were with us earlier on this month they said that the Scottish Government had got lucky with recreational divers being on the scene at Loch Karan to monitor the damage so there's clearly an issue there about ongoing management and monitoring of these MPAs but your official also said that the government may consider a distance ban I know you've referred to that on banning dredging out to a particular limit that may be something that you can consider I know you've already alluded to the fact that that's a tool in the box not necessarily a tool you're going to use but can you expand on that a bit more about what consideration that you're giving to that? Well, principle amongst the consideration would be if you impose a blanket ban on the order that's being suggested you would effectively decimate the industry so that can't be excluded from consideration in my view in order to take that step you would have to be in a position of feeling that there really was no other alternative than that Loch Karan hadn't been dredged as I understand it for something like 10 years so it wasn't a situation where there was a constant consistent irresponsible dredging going on in an area so I think we would want to be very careful about going to that level of response given the implications and trying to work through what kind of proper management can be agreed with all sectors of the fishing industry MPAs don't exclude all fishing they are managed areas so the question then becomes how do we manage even the insure as best as possible and I've already put on record my grateful thanks to those volunteer divers recreational divers who uncovered this that members will I suppose accept that it is impossible to have a monitoring regime that monitors every single feature around the clock over years and years so we do rely on a variety of different reporting mechanisms and recreational divers are a very important part of that network Decimate that suggests that there is an inclusion on this or certainly on the principle of a ban out to a certain level I've seen the numbers and I know what the impact would be if we imposed a ban out to a certain level on a particular industry Now no government will ever say never but the fact is if you're going to move to that kind of decision then you need to be very conscious for a huge part of our coastal communities and the coastal economy Thank you Finally on this topic Kate Forbes Earlier you talked about bringing everybody around the table just wondering if there is any updates on the Small Isles MPA Small Isles MPA and if not then I can We're consulted the the remaining ensure MPA fisheries measures will be consulted on at the end of 2017 That will include more work in respect of all of that there's more work required on an effective management proposal at the Small Isles the updated proposal will become part of that wider planned consultation so we're working very hard to try and get people to an agreement around that and then that will feed into the wider consultation so I think there's 21 sites going to be part of that wider consultation so it's a big programme of work Thank you One part As if to perfectly illustrate the width of your remit Cabinet Secretary, we're going to move from MPAs to waste now Richard Lyle Stolen my first couple of words that I was going to say how impressed I am with your wide remit The Government's programme for Scotland 2016-17 including commitments to introduce a circular economy and zero waste bill in the second half of the parliamentary session What issues does the Scottish Government plan to include in the circular economy and zero waste bill and when do you plan to consult on this and will you meet the timescales that's previously agreed and what work are you doing to ensure the target to ban the disposal of biodegradable waste to landfill by 2021 and recycle 70% of all the Scotland's waste by 2025 can be achieved Circular economy bill is presently scheduled towards the end of the parliamentary session so it's it's not imminent The priorities have already been set out in the strategy making things last so people couldn't see from that what our priorities are likely to be so that's design, reuse, repair recycling etc but also food and the bio economy construction energy infrastructure remanufacture so it's quite a substantial part and to be fair it will probably include some other colleagues in other portfolios in respect of this we have a lot of work to do to raise awareness of the economic opportunities so we're engaging with businesses and that's a priority for early engagement during this year and that is working towards the ultimate goal of the circular economy bill in terms of the work towards targets the recycling targets that we've set do provide a clear direction of travel for business and local authorities and for the moment what we're trying to do is work transition through that 2020 milestone as smoothly as possible and that's to ensure that we don't end up with excess energy from waste infrastructure that undermines the high quality recycling there's a balance often inherent in all of this we're trying to keep things manageable local authorities obviously have to put arrangements in place to meet their own statutory duties I think that SEPA are currently working on technical guidance for them in terms of their post 2020 requirements on recycling performance the current number of local authorities signed up to the recycling charter is 25 out of the 32 so we're making progress on that but obviously local authorities that sign up don't overnight suddenly comply they sign up to begin the work towards compliance so Zero Waste Scotland is working with them to implement their transition plans now I've got an open mind on what we can do to really accelerate this and I'll be intending to visit Wales this summer because Wales performs incredibly well in this regard so I'm a way down there to see if I can find out what can be translated back to Scotland from the Welsh experience and it's about learning from others as well as presuming that we can always come up with solutions ourselves My next question is in regard to the deposit return scheme is the Scottish Government planning to make a decision on whether to move forward with proposals to introduce a deposit return system in Scotland bearing in mind the recent concerns voiced by the Scottish grossers federation who actually wrote to some of us in this committee this week representing over a thousand retailers I have to also declare that I was a grosser for 14 years and also others stacking up against this change in recycling why would we want to do this Well obviously there's a big debate around this and we've undertaken to do as much work as is possible on this and look at different ideas and actual fact the final stakeholder workshop is happening today on this phase of discussion on deposit return deposit return would be included if we were going to go down that road whatever we chose to do in that would be part of the circular economy bills so we're not under immediate pressure in terms of legislation I know that the committee had a subgroup working on this I think from what I can see it was very useful but I think it pretty much highlighted how complex this is and how right we are not to simply jump to an immediate answer without thinking through the implications including for the small cornergrocers who neither have the space nor the staff or the infrastructure to deal with some of this and indeed Richard Lyle's correct to flag up the potential contradiction between the imposition of higher recycling targets if you take away a big stream of potential recycling from the market so there's a lot of complex issues to consider here and I think we've done the right thing by ensuring that we speak to as wide a group of people as possible and really think through the implications of this I know that some of the bigger companies some companies have indicated that they have a change of mind on this others are still adamantly opposed there's no unanimity out there amongst the commercial stakeholders in terms of the environmental stakeholders there's perhaps more of a sense that we should have some kind of system but then there is the contradiction with taking recycling away from other potential markets so it isn't just as simple and straightforward as it sometimes first looks Can I thank you cabinet secretary for your honesty and your decision on hopefully we'll come down again The work is on going as I've indicated a stakeholder event starting today it's the final one but we're not we want to explore every single option on this Can I just ask a brief supplementary cabinet secretary just about if so when the stakeholder event information will be published so that the committee could actually consider that as well Good question to which I don't have an answer Can we get back to you on that one? Thank you Cabinet secretary Emma Harper I'm interested in air quality The Scottish Government's Clean Air for Scotland strategy aims for Scotland to have the best air quality in Europe and on the 2 May the committee took evidence from stakeholders and academics on air quality in Scotland and recently we had a debate and many of us in the committee spoke about air quality and quoted stats and facts and talking about the importance of tackling air quality so it's obviously creeping up the agenda and I'd like to acknowledge that you have a really extremely wide portfolio Cabinet secretary as has been mentioned already so if we're looking at development of low emission zones I would be interested to know what your comments are regarding the evidence that shows that low emission zones are effective in reducing local pollution levels and improving public health but I'm also interested in what seems like the costs just seem to stack up when we're looking at the evidence the costs of creating and running low emission zones, the technology the retrofitting of buses the purchasing of new buses it's a logistical major challenge so what are your thoughts about that the evidence and then the costs from my understanding is that this kind of evidence can be found either way in this regard and I suppose ultimately what it comes down to is how the LEZ is actually defined how it's designed there were LEZs in Dutch cities that didn't actually make any difference LEZs for example the Berlin LEZ did make a fairly significant difference but the difference is not it tends to be up to about 10% reduction in emissions levels and there is a literature review by academics it's called Air Use and it's published this year I don't know if the committee might want to go and have a look at that basically confirming that the outcomes are hugely dependent on local factors the size, the operational scope the traffic data robustness local metrology depending on what you do might result in an outcome that is better or worse but the best to manage the Berlin LEZ was 7% to 10% reduction in NOX one localised study in London said 3% to 7% so we're talking within that ballpark by the look of it in fairness I think we now have two local authorities in Scotland who are actively wanting to discuss a low emission zone that's Glasgow and Edinburgh which is heartening that there are two who are actively interested in this now and again I suppose the costs and benefits reflect back on what I said about the evidence will depend entirely on what you choose to do and I think you made some you offered some examples but of course the reality is that might not be how it's set up the way you do it may have different impact really it's a kind of balance and for those local authorities that are interested in this there will be the ones where there is the most and the biggest areas of harmful emissions I think the debate that you were talking about was taken by public health colleagues which I think was a very appropriate thing to do because this is a public health issue but clearly we have to have some indication of what will be the most effective way of reducing of reducing emissions just a quick supplement you mentioned that two councils or two local authorities are interested in a low emission zone last week friends of the earth were in my office basically saying is it possible to have more than one pilot or do we stick with one pilot what's the best way forward well they cost money they're not cost free so we have to try and be sensible about it the idea of a pilot is to tease out some of the issues I've indicated from that evidence and see if there's a particular model which would work effectively in an ideal world I would like to see lots and lots of pilots doing lots and lots of different things but there isn't really going to be the capacity to do that so the idea is we'll try and find one to do the initial pilot and then that will help us inform roll out if other local authorities wish to go ahead so no decision yet has been taken about where that might be David Stewart very briefly Cabinet Secretary, I've asked a very quick technical question and by all means please write if you don't have it in front of you I was getting a brief about the London LAZ and they were telling me about the fantastic vehicle recognition software that was available so every entrance and exit to London they're able to detect the vehicle and charge accordingly so for example a Euro 6 diesel would be exempt because it's not emitting and the one that's not exempt would automatically be charged so the reason I'm asking this is I obviously am enthusiastic about LAZ I would like to see as many cities as possible go for this but it's very much about what are you applying for if that technology is going to be there or paid for that's a Rolls-Royce approach which is very effective but if it's not going to be there I can understand why local authorities might be reluctant to apply Glasgow wrote to me and said that the London example they said on memory was over 100 million it is very expensive but the whole of London is covered now I'm subject to contradiction I don't think any Scottish city has a complete 360 degree approach that London has on this so there's some technology available for vehicle recognition is that something that government's thinking about or is it not that level of LAZ that's been planned well at the moment there's no specific detail in terms of planning and that's what some of the conversations are about what a local authority would like to see and where and there's also no requirement for it to be a big bang approach LAZ can start off in a very much more localised area and begin to expand depending on the experience so different cities may have a different idea of how best to manage that process but yes it is it is expensive money has to be invested and therefore I'm just being cautious about being able to do a big bang you know I suppose 100 million sort of job is unlikely to be to be manageable in the current state of finances so it's therefore exploring with local authorities how this can be dealt with I think Emma Harper talked about buses having to be converted but of course in the early instance you know you may designate a small area into which buses don't go or taxis don't go or whatever you can come up with all sorts of potential ways around it that don't immediately trigger some of the massive investment and it's a kind of signal then moving forward and to be perfectly fair I think that when it comes to a lot of these things fleet owners et cetera are already moving themselves and their vehicles over as much as they possibly can so one city may have a different idea of what their LEZ would look like compared to another city our concern is just not to not to be in a situation where we can't afford to do everything all at the same time and therefore the idea scenario is to find a pilot that begins to show a way forward that will work across as many cities as possible okay thank you moving on, Mark Ruskell sticking with air quality though you'll be aware of the high court judgement from last year that the UK's air quality plans particularly on nitrous oxide are not compliant with EU law we're breaking the law and as a result we're contributing towards a major public health crisis Scottish Government plans are part of that overall UK plan so what action have you taken since that high court ruling to ensure that the approach that the Scottish Government is taking is compliant with those EU directives well I did flag up the judgement immediately to my officials and said that may have been Westminster but I didn't think about the potential implications for Scotland so we are working hard to try and evidence that what we're doing is going to keep us compliant now the Cleaner Air for Scotland strategy set out a programme of work we've kept under review we believe it remains fit for purpose delivering against EU obligations and our 2020 target was identified as a practical timeline and was part of the consultation process that led to the strategy so while I've ensured that officials don't ignore the court case south of the border we feel confident that the work that we are doing is getting us into the right place it's not really clear to me what that work actually is what that change of approach is because you said that we need to ensure that we stay compliant the high court ruling was that we're not compliant so something has to change as a result and I'm particularly thinking about Clean Air for Scotland whether that will be reviewed because I have asked this question to your colleague Aileen Campbell in the debate that took place a couple of weeks ago and I haven't had a clear answer yet I think the First Minister talked about Clean Air for Scotland being a chapter in the UK plan but this is a pretty serious judgment from the high court so I don't get a sense of how that approach in Scotland is being reviewed and whether you know this committee or other stakeholders can actually input into that plan to ensure that it's compliant it's kept under regular review the first progress report was published on the 15th of June so that's just a few days ago really and we're adding to the air quality budget to support actions in Clean Air for Scotland so it is under constant review it doesn't require to be torn up and started again but we are keeping it under review and if committee members want to have a look at the first progress report it was just published last week Would there be the opportunity to feed into that formally for external stakeholders and the committee to feed into a review of the strategy? It's now a public report and as I indicated it's under regular review it's perfectly open to any stakeholders to go and look at that first review and then come back on the back of that Thank you Moving on Alex Burnett Thank you for talking about flooding and more importantly flood prevention this is a continuing cause of concern for my constituency constituents in Chymone and Ballater to any areas affected by the floods last year as a cabinet secretary will be aware the national flood risk assessment identification of potentially vulnerable areas is reviewed and republished on a six year planning cycle the next date for that being 2022 you very kindly replied in last month when I wrote to you saying that you had the power under the act to review and where appropriate at times out with this six year cycle however there are no plans to use this power can I ask why not because the work is already on going on the second cycle we're currently working on that no current plans to upset that timetable that can always change if the situation changes but the work is already being done and that will be providing the basis for the identification of the potentially vulnerable areas and local flood risk management plans and SIPAs actively involved in doing that so I'm assuming that one of the things that we'll be looking at is the situation in Aberdeenshire it will build on the first cycle it will review the methodology in the first cycle it will take on board new data and information and that includes the balater situation particularly when the new information relates to climate change community functionality, cohesion and isolation et cetera et cetera I think it's worth remembering that this is a huge step change in the way we've managed to flood protection in Scotland because it now provides a really transparent system of identification a committed budget which is ensuring that these infrastructure projects are put in place an identification of those areas that are most in need so the new cycle will have a lot of updated information included and we'll come forward with that second cycle of national flood risk assessment this moves us away from a kind of scattergun approach which was really the way it was being done previously so while it doesn't it's not impossible to imagine a scenario where you would move outside the cycle we'd want to minimise the likelihood of that happening simply because this process provides us with the most robust way of managing flood protection across the whole of the country and we are constantly reviewing that SIPA is constantly reviewing that kind of approach looking at new research constantly thinking about new information which will change that Is that not exactly the point Geoff? If the act gives the scope to review the plan outside of a six year cycle what is the event that you are waiting for to use that power if it wasn't the scale of the floods that happened last year? That will be one of the things that is being looked at very carefully by SIPA right now and at the moment they are still confident that doing it on the cycle basis that was laid down by the legislation continues to be the right way to proceed a lot of the PVA's will probably remain the same but that review and revision process will involve authorities and other stakeholders in terms of potential to update the list but I guess what I'm trying to say is that we've already got a better more consistent more strategic approach to the situation in Scotland and at the moment we think it's better to stick with that than to upset it in the middle of the process because there's a lot of I mean flood protection works are in place and committed to over an incredibly long period of time I mean some of the things that I've opened now were things that I signed off on between 2009 and 2011 and they're only just now actually being built so we kind of have to think into that longer term Okay, thank you Brichwyd Fily Carson I appreciate what you're saying about a longer term approach to flooding but that gives no reassurance to communities like Cersfair and my constituency on Newton Stuart that were hit by three major floods and because they weren't part of a vulnerable zone there was a reluctance on behalf of both the Government and local authorities to actually take some action which would have resulted in fewer homes being flooded in subsequent years Does there not need to be that level of flexibility as Alexander set out where it's pretty obvious that there's a flood risk that it's not going to take six years for any flood prevention work to be done in that community? Well, not all of the money that is committed to flood protection is committed just to PVAs so there is a proportion of the annual budget that we've committed to and flood protection is an unusual one in that we've committed over a very long period of time to an annual budget figure and a proportion of that is protected from simply being part of the PVAs that this will always be a difficult process and we are always subject to some of the randomness of nature and climate change but at the moment CPI is still confident that what is being proposed is the best way for us to manage it and I suppose there can be a conversation then about how the balance of the money is being used by local authorities but that's a conversation we would need to have with COSLA as well because they are also part of this conversation Thank you, Government Secretary I think we've done very well to cover the subjects we have so far we still have a number to do it hopefully these are short, sharp lines of questioning Emma Harper Thank you As you know I'm interested in animal welfare on the 10th May with an update on animal welfare issues including regulations regarding licensing of animal sanctuaries and rescue centres, rehoming centres and the review of legislation on breeding and dealing of animals and other issues so I'm just quick question any further update on any of these issues or any timetable proposed for action? Work is on going on all of that team that are involved in the wild animals and travelling circuses bills so there's a physical amount of space I have to give them to be able to drop things and put other things in terms of priorities so we don't have absolutely specific time scales for every single one obviously there's a piece of legislation going through and that in a sense takes a bit of priority and there's work being done on other things some will involve consultation or further consultation some will not so at this stage while everything is being progressed it's not all being progressed at the same speed and nor will it, well at least I'm sure the committee doesn't want it all to arrive on the committee's lap all at the same time either which would be difficult and I did talk about a review of offences in animal health and welfare act so again all of this is subject to some of the Brexit impact so I'm having to think about what I notionally might think of as being perhaps the more important bits as opposed to the bits that can be held if there's a big impact if we've got to be looking at other things first so work is on going but right now the legislation is a priority for that team and then they will return and pick up on some of the other things but I have no specific time scales for any of the different sets of SI's that would emanate from this OK, thanks OK, thank you Can I ask the cabinet secretary about SNH's report that's being carried out on scoping a vision for the uplands when that's due and how you intend taking that forward I think the vision for the uplands is the SNH report which is scoping a kind of potential for the vision I have to remember it's not actually trying to scope a vision it's doing it will be published soon it's going to make recommendations on the way forward obviously we'll consider those and we will come back and make our plans known but the report my recollection is it's due quite soon so we'll flag it straight up to committee when it comes out That would be useful because it's an area that we've considered taking a particular interest in taking forward Thank you for that Thank you, convener Cabinet secretary, could I ask you in relation to deer management which the committee has looked at in some detail whether there will be a clear plan on deer management and when that will be published Eminently Thank you We look forward to that given our involvement in the issue I lost subject on a similar theme Where are we at in terms of the secondary legislation I'm conscious of the concerns out there about the practical implementation of whatever's brought forward so I just want to get a handle on where you're at with that We're still progressing work on the strategic environmental assessment and the habitat regulations assessment when that work is done there will then be moving on to an SI a statutory instrument which would add beavers to schedule 2 of the conservation natural habitats regulations 1994 We expect and hope to be able to do that later this summer SNH is also currently working on a couple of aspects related to this I had asked them to do a sort of mapping exercise that would show us what the natural expansion would look like so that we can ascertain if a beaver suddenly pops up somewhere a very long way away that the likelihood is that it's being deliberately transported as opposed to what might be considered to be a natural travel So I've asked SNH to have a look at that and clearly they're also working on a management tool for them to actually be ready for when the statutory instrument is brought in that they are then ready to actually work with and alongside landowners and land managers on this issue And as far as the management tools concerned they are currently engaging with land managers as to how this might work in practice I see Keith Conor on the new setting agreement Yes, as far as I'm aware This was one of the issues raised by the NFUS last Thursday Yes, and I understand what we saw from the farmers' perspective Thank you for that. Mark Ruskell on Aquaculture I wanted to ask you Cabinet Secretary about your leadership on this issue I've clearly got an issue with the compliance rate with aquaculture at the moment and the figures that this committee had showed that compliance had actually gone down It's one of the few sectors where compliance was slipping down below 90% Do you believe that the current regulatory approach that CEPA are taking with the aquaculture sector is really working particularly in light of the ambitious expansion plans that the industry and government have got? Well, it's a huge industry it contributes enormously to the success of Scotland's food and drink it provides employment for a huge number of people but I am obviously conscious that there's a big environmental question in respect of management CEPA is the regulatory body and they've only just yesterday, I think, published some new work that they're wanting to think about and it's going to be controversial it's so that there will be a lively conversation between the producers and CEPA and the environmental sector about the way forward and that is very current so this new framework for a sustainable future for Finfit aquaculture in Scotland if members are not aware that was just come out with yesterday and I think there's been some industry response to it which suggests it's going to be a lively debate which is what I would expect there are some interesting developments in other countries that I've asked about but we need to get people around the table I mean, once again, I think the truth of the matter is that in the industry it's actually in their best interests because change which provides for healthier stock reduces stock losses and all the rest of it is money in the bank for them in any case but as supposed from their perspective it's about what is manageable and then environmentally we've obviously got to take on board a number of different considerations too active and very current and if people are not aware of the proposals published by SEPA yesterday I would urge them to go and have a wee look when we come back after the summer okay, thank you for that Finlay Carson it follows directly on from Mark's question I'm particularly interested in what work will be done to establish whether there's a link between salmon fishing and the state of wild salmon but we had a draft wild fishery strategy on 8 February 2016 can I ask you whether the measures introduced have met their aims of improving the conservation status of wild salmon and also can I have an update on where we are with implementing the agriculture fisheries act 2013 and when it's likely a wild fisheries bill be introduced 2018 will be the third fishing season in which we've made conservation assessments in our view it's a bit too early yet to assess whether the measures introduced have met their aim, we think it is going to need a little bit longer and we are going to be bringing forward regulations for the 2018 season later in this year and I know the member has very active interest in this and we'll want to look out for those. In terms of the implementation of the 2013 act we are working with the sector to deliver improvements and reform in advance of legislation where possible in terms of the wild fisheries bill the bill remains in the programme under current plans we may bring it forward in year 3 but really just depends on whether or not again we find ourselves bounced about by things out with our control but that's the current intention sorry I'm just trying to be careful not to give an explicit commitment to a particular time when I can't be 100% certain that I can make it but that's where it's penciled in at the moment so we would be talking the 1819 parliamentary year but probably not early in that year probably later in that year for that candle we've finished the questions but before I conclude the meeting I'm going to allow Angus MacDonald to bring forward a point of clarification for the record yes thanks, I appreciate the opportunity on a point of clarification before you close the meeting during this evidence session Richard Lyle earlier may have, albeit inadvertently given the impression that the committee has already formed an opinion on deposit return schemes which is clearly not the case so I'd like to place on the record that the majority of members of this committee are keeping an open mind on DRS and will look forward to further consideration of the issue in the not too distant future it is accurate to say that the committee hasn't come to a conclusion cabinet secretary I apologise if it's I that was not the intention I'm sure it wasn't, thank you for that Mr Lyle cabinet secretary, thank you for your time we've covered an incredible amount of ground and I think we've all used straighted the incredible remit that you have there are a number of issues I think you indicated you'll come back there's a number of issues I've committed to come back to you on but equally the offer is if there's anything that you feel that we can come back and we will, thank you for that and thank you for your time and that of your officials today and I wish you a restful summer recess if that's possible the committee expects next meet after the summer recess on 5 September 2017 and as agreed we will now move into private session I ask that the public gallery be cleared as the public part of the meeting is now closed