 I welcome everyone to the 11th public petitions committee meeting 2015. I remind everyone to switch off their mobile phones and electronic devices as they do interfere with the sound system. No apologies have been received today. Agenda item 1 is consideration of a continued petition. The first item of business is consideration of PE 1558 by John Thom, on behalf of RNBCC Crayfish Committee, Kennedy Catchment on American Signal Crayfish. As proof is agreed, the committee will be taking evidence today from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Scottish Natural Heritage. Members have a note by the clerk and may I welcome Dr Scott Matheson from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Professor Colin Breane from the Scottish National Heritage to the meeting today. I also welcome Alex Ferguson MSP to the meeting, who has a constituency interest in this petition. I can now invite Professor Beane to make a short opening statement after which we will move to questions. I express my thanks to the committee for inviting myself and Scott to come and give evidence today. This will be a joint opening statement on behalf of SNH and SIPA. Invasive non-ethu species or INS, as I will refer to them from now on, are considered to be the second most important reason for biodiversity loss globally after habitat loss and fragmentation. They are extremely damaging to our environment and our economy and our health, and they cost Scotland as much as about £250 million annually. Crayfish are highly invasive. As you have heard, they have been introduced to a number of water bodies, and where they do, they have the potential to cause adverse impacts on the aquatic ecology and many of our freshwater habitats. To put this in context, the Convention of Biological Diversity places an emphasis on INS prevention measures on a basis that this is better than the cure. Once INS becomes established, its control and eradication can be technically challenging. It can be very expensive, and in some cases it is not even possible. Prevention is the least environmentally damaging option and can, with adequate resources, be applied to a greater or less extent across the whole spectrum in invasive species threats. That principle was repeated in the Convention of Biological Diversity Ageing Targets, the EU biodiversity strategy, the 2020 challenge in Scotland's biodiversity, and all of those give the greatest priority to prevention. The new EU regulation, 1143, introduces a statutory requirement on member states to ban the keeping, transport and sale of species of EU concern. The signal crayfish are one of those species being considered for listing, but priority is obviously going to be given to species that have yet to arrive or are at an early stage of their invasion. The habitat directive and the waterframer directive also require action to prevent deterioration of vulnerable habitats in species, and Scotland is around for the quality of its rivers and its international responsibilities for freshwater per mussel, lamprey, mollant examine. The spread of signal crayfish is a potential to cause adverse impacts on those interests, and that could affect our ability to meet the requirements of those directives. The top priority for signal crayfish is to prevent their spread to other catchments, and the distribution of signal crayfish in Scotland is actually quite limited. In 2010, it was estimated that 174 kilometres of river length were infested with signal crayfish. That is actually 0.1 per cent of the river length in Scotland. They are, of course, present in some other locks and ponds, lock-ken being the reason why we are here today. Signal crayfish are, in most instances, unable to move between catchments. They are not great movers under their own right. They certainly do not move without the help of humans, largely, and it is vitally important to prevent a deliberate and accidental movement between catchments. SNH and Marine Scotland have considered several applications in the past for licences to trap signal crayfish in lock-ken. SNH, now, with the Licence Authority, assesses all of those licences applications objectively, and we have to weigh the benefits of trapping against the risk of encouraging further spread. If we allow commercial crayfish fisheries to develop in Scotland, there is a high risk of encouraging deliberate introductions of crayfish to other catchments. That is supported by evidence from elsewhere. We are giving a commercial value to non-native crayfish has resulted in further introductions in the previously uninvaded areas in a number of countries. Studies in Sweden and Spain have demonstrated that the establishment of crayfish fisheries has led to the increase dispersal of these animals to new areas, often to develop a new fishery in other waters. The policy position of the GB non-native species programme board of which Scottish Government is a member is that there should be a presumption against the commercial exploitation of invasive non-native species. The only circumstances in which regulatory authorities should permit the commercial exploitation is where ins are widely established and commercial exploitation is unlikely to jeopardise the potential for future management prospects. In other words, it should not make the situation worse. So any proposal that creates a market incentive for people to introduce signal crayfish elsewhere in Scotland has that potential to make the situation worse. Trapping is regularly put forward as a solution to the crayfish problem. Most often by individuals who wish to exploit populations in Loch Kenner elsewhere in Scotland either for personal consumption or for sale. It is widely accepted, however, that trapping does not remove all life stages of crayfish and it is not effective as a method of eradication. But it is highly intensity that trapping effort may reduce the numbers of large and particularly male crayfish in some areas that result in compensatory growth in production of wild crayfish. It can mean that the benefits are lost. Where trapping is licensed in the UK, both the environment agency and CFAS admit that there are weaknesses in their own licensing system. The blanket ban in keeping live crayfish in Scotland is clearer and more enforceable in the postcode map of GO and NOGO areas in England, which allows live crayfish to be shipped into NOGO areas for the catering trade. That led in 2013 to the tabling of a cross-party early-day motion number 659, which called on the Government to, and I quote, give urgent consideration to emulating Scottish biosecurity control measures in England and Wales to review the 2004 crayfish bylaws and to ban the live transport and sale of alien crayfish species in England and Wales. Prevention is the top priority for tackling the spread of the signal crayfish between river catchments. The Check Clean and Dry campaign is a GB-wide biosecurity campaign to raise the awareness of water sports enthusiasts to the risk of non-native species introductions. The three simple hygiene steps have been shown to significantly reduce the risk of spreading invasive plants and animals between catchments on damp equipment. CEPA has been working with a range of national water sports and fishing groups to promote Check Clean and Dry across Scotland, and since 2012, over 380 fixed signs have been installed at key locations. More than 8,000 leaflets and posters have been distributed. Many of the partners now feature Check Clean and Dry on their websites and include biosecurity in their training programmes. CEPA has also just produced a biosecurity pack for event organisers endorsed by a range of water sports users. Will SNH and CEPA recognise the impact of the negative press about crayfish in law-cennas-hardened businesses that rely on visiting anglers? This year, we will begin a survey of angling catches with a view to assessing the future viability of that fishery in law-cenn. One of the aims of the project will be to promote the opportunities that the area has to offer for visiting anglers. Together with the Forestry Commission and Freesing Galloway Council, SNH and CEPA are also proactively promoting alternative green tourism activities in the area. The Freesing Galloway Council has gathered ideas for ways to promote the landscape and the natural heritage of river de-catchment and is due to submit a funding ban to the heritage lottery fund this week. Nature-based tourism is worth at £1.4 billion a year to the Scotland's economy and supports 39,000 full-time equivalent jobs. Field sports, including angling, contribute around a tenth in that total of about £136 million per annum, and local initiatives such as the Galloway Kite Trail, Seven Stains and Dark Skies are already attracting new visitors to the area. As a licensing authority, SNH is open to discussing any proposals for the control of signal crayfish in law-cenn, however, those must address the risks of encouraging the spread of signal crayfish elsewhere. The top priority, as I have said, is for managing the threat of signal crayfish in Scotland, and it must be prevention of that spread. Recently, the Rural Affairs Committee, the Climate Change Environmental Committee completed work on biodiversity in a letter to the environmental minister. Following that work, the committee said that we are aware that not only are American signal crayfish highly destructive to local ecosystems, but their invasive nature means that they may become a national issue if effective and urgent steps are not taken. Do you agree with the Rural Affairs Climate Change and Environmental Committee that the invasive nature of American signal crayfish means that they may become a national issue if effective and urgent steps are not taken? I think that there are two ways to answer that. The first thing is to try to put the situation in context, and I mentioned in my opening statement that 174 kilometres of waterways are infested by signal crayfish. That is equivalent to 1 per cent of all the waterways in Scotland. The situation is actually very small in Scotland when we compare that to other parts of the UK. To give you some other contextual data, if you look at England, 11,246 kilometres out of 46,939 kilometres of waterways are infested. That is a real problem. The real issue in Scotland is to prevent the further spread of those animals. Because signal crayfish have relatively poor powers of dispersal, you might have heard there that signal crayfish can get out of water, they can walk for miles and infest new catchments in new rivers and new locks. That simply is not the truth. The fact of the matter is that signal crayfish can move out of waters and they can live on land for a short period of time. They cannot move far. They have very limited powers of dispersal. The reason why those animals appear in the situations that they appear in, which is as far south as Loch Ken and as far north as the River Nairn in Scotland, is because people have moved them there. There is no clear pathway of natural invasion from signal crayfish. The key issue here is to prevent the introduction of new populations. Once signal crayfish have been introduced into a water body, it is almost impossible to remove them. In very small water bodies and small ponds, for example, we have been able to try to eradicate those animals using biocides. In that regard, Scotland is certainly a leader not only in the UK but in Europe when it comes to the number of attempts that we have made to eradicate crayfish from our waters. Once those crayfish are introduced into rivers or into large loffs, such as Loch Ken, the prospect for eradication is nil. The clear driver here is to prevent those animals from being introduced in the first place. Whilst they are incredibly damaging where they occur, the real trick is to ensure that they do not get there in the first place. The real problem is managing people, not managing the animal. You gave a statistic there that there are 174 kilometres infested by obviously the ease and base of fish. How long has it taken to get to that kind of length of time? Crayfish was first recorded in Scotland in 1995. That was ironically in the system, the creature deed, where Loch Ken is situated. They have undoubtedly been there for some time before that. By the time that people notice that crayfish are present, they have already been there for some time and are already established. A Conservative estimate would say that they have probably been in the deacan system since the 80s. Still, in 2015, we are at 0.1 per cent of our waterways and 174 kilometres of waterways. We are not talking about an animal here, which will spread at a fast rate of knots throughout Scotland. Many parts of Scotland, I am sure, are not particularly suitable for this animal. That gives you an idea of how quickly these animals spread in a bit of context in relation to how fast the animal has been moving. We generally pick up new populations in every year, usually in a place that is far removed from the next possible source of infestation. Last week, for example, we found that there was a single crayfish population that had been introduced to a small pond—I do not know if any of you know—Colebridge, the Tari pond. In the middle of Colebridge, that was last week. Those things occasionally come up. There is no near population that could not have done that under their own steam. That population probably came from somewhere on the Clyde, where the upper Clyde, like the deacan system, is equally infested with those animals too. Good morning, Professor Dr Matheson. Just picking up on a point that you made with regard to the situation in England, it would seem that there is a worse problem down there. However, I was just curious as to whether there has been any attempt in England to commercially trap American signal crayfish. Absolutely. There is a well-established commercial fishery for crayfish in England, and that is where the Scottish populations have come from. To give you the baseline for that, in fact, crayfish were introduced into England and Wales in the late 1970s and early 1980s. In fact, they were encouraged to introduce crayfish by math at the time, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. It was part of a diversification programme. Unfortunately, crayfish are a bit like the Steve McQueen of the invertebrate world, and those things are promptly escaped. They are pretty good at burrowing out of things. Of course, new populations were established, feral populations were established, and they were established in the wild. There is a well-established crayfish industry in England. It is managed through different means in England. They have, as I mentioned in the opening statement, go and no-go areas in England, where they have a postcode system, where, if you have crayfish in the postcode area—and it is a set postcode area that does not move since 1996, I believe—you are allowed to exploit crayfish for personal consumption. However, there are several gaps in that legislation. In fact, I can make reference to some comments from colleagues in CFAS that said that the alpha, which is the legislation that they use to control crayfish exploitation in England, has slowed down the spread, but it has not stopped the spread. I think that there is quite clearly an incentive for people who exploit that resource to maintain that resource and to increase fishing opportunities. In fact, if you look at the websites for many of those crayfish companies, they actively look for new water bodies to exploit. Those are the same people who wish to exploit Loch Kenne. Can you update the committee on the actions that have been taken as a result of a meeting heard by Paul Wheelhouse in July last year, specifically on what has been done to restore confidence in Loch Kenne as a course fishing destination? There were several points that came out of the morning to the committee, and I apologise and thank you for the opportunity to address you. There were several key points that came out of the minister's meeting on 31 July. There was a proposal to take forward further work on the fishery and the status of the fishery in Loch Kenne. There was a proposal to do further work on the population in Dalbyty with a view to introducing measures to control or address the problem there, and there was a suggestion for the promotion of biosecurity. There was also a further suggestion that the minister would take away the need to do further work promoting tourism and other activities in the area. I can cover progress with the first three of those. I have not been involved with the minister's commitment to tourism. The survey to assess the status of freshwater fish was intended to assess the viability of the Loch as a Fishery and an opportunity to see whether the suggestions at the fishery was no longer viable were supported by evidence. We have in place a project proposal for a survey of course of fish using angler surveys and a potential fishing event. That will both allow us to gather data and promote angling and biosecurity to the community there. I am able to say that funding for that project to start this summer has been secured from both SEPA and SNH. That is work that will be happening over the course of summer 2015. On the back of the minister's meeting, there is also the development of a heritage lottery fund bid led by Dumfries and Galloway Council. I believe that the bid is to be submitted at the end of this week. Funding for that would start in 2017. The fishery survey is an interim preparatory work towards that. The proposal was that the bid is successful would help fund the setting up of a group to promote angling in Loch Ken and the catchment. Also review the existing Loch Ken management plan and produce a fishery management plan, and that would be informed by the data from the citizen data that we hope to start collecting this year. In relation to Del Bt reservoir, SEPA and Scottish Water have been working very closely to assess the feasibility of options and produce an action plan that should be completed by the next month. There is a view to initial measures being put in place in summer 2015, and speaking to local colleagues, there is discussion of the potential for eradication, so the potential is there to isolate the reservoir and treat the population to remove it. That is a feasible option in smaller water bodies, as Colin has outlined. However, with a view to preventing their escape into the river, the potential for what was described to me as a chain mail mesh net across the reservoir is one of the options that is being looked at. In relation to a survey around the Del Bt reservoir, the Galloway Fisheries Trust carried on surveying in the area to inform the decision process, and they undertook a survey. The last one was in late autumn 2014, and they did not find any evidence of crayfish in the burned downstream in the reservoir, so it looks like they are still contained in the reservoir with potential to do something to treat that. In relation to the promotion of biosecurity, the Check Clean Dry campaign that Colin outlined is the key GB approach to that. SEPA and SNH have been working nationally with a range of national water sports and fishing groups to promote that Check Clean Dry biosecurity campaign across Scotland. Colin outlined that, since November 2012, we have arranged for 380 signs at key locations such as boat entry points and so on, and 8,000 leaflets and posters that are distributed. To outline some of the partners who have been involved in that, the Rivers and Fisheries Trust for Scotland, the Scottish Federation for Coast Anglers, the Scottish Angling National Association, the Scottish Canoe Association, the Royal Yoting Association with the Green Blue and Triathlon Scotland, and then in the Dumfries and Galloway area, with a number of those partners and the three fishery trusts in the area, the Nith catchment fishery trust, the River Annan trust and the Galloway fisheries trust, we have been working to produce a biosecurity information pack for event organisers. That is ready, ready to launch, and we hope to launch that in an event on Loch Ken to promote the guidance if possible in the area. There is actually a lot of additional local work on Inns and specifically on crayfish, which I have a long list and I will be very happy to provide the details of that in a written response, if that will be helpful. That would be helpful, Mr Martheson. Angus. Thanks, convener. You mentioned the Czech Clean Dry campaign, which is obviously promoted by both your organisations. However, the petitioner claims that it is not working or it will not work in its current form. He states that canoe boats and other small watercraft in the Ken Dee catchment have no facilities to carry out such a task at the end of the day, and no one is there to enforce it. A 16-inch by 20-inch sign every eight miles is not going to inform the public. Can you tell us what impact the campaign is having today, especially given the views of the petitioner, that it will not work in its current form? I am not aware of the monitoring that has been in place yet for the effectiveness of this, but this is at an early stage in launching the campaign locally. An effective promotion campaign requires monitoring, so if it would be helpful, I can work with local colleagues to identify what they propose to do to monitor the effectiveness. However, I can certainly attest to the efforts that they have been putting in to spread the message locally, both targeted on user groups and, more generally, as an awareness with the local community. I have a number of questions on the check, clean and dry campaign. Is there any evidence that the spread in Scotland is other than accidental? There is one area in the east part of the country, not too far away from here, to introduce grayfish as a management tool to kill what is called mortalities or morts in a fishery, to help to prevent disease within a fishery as dead fish fall to the bottom of a pond, so grayfish would come in and remove those things themselves. That is an example of a deliberate introduction. There was a deliberate introduction to farm ponds, a garden pond, in fact, in the Tay system. That is a situation where we try to remove grayfish with biocide. There was a deliberate introduction to a series of ponds in the north-east catchment. I for consumption, that was a case that went to court and was thrown out in a technicality. There was a deliberate introduction into the quarry pond in Balaholish. I can only assume that the introduction to the tarry pond that I explained earlier in Colbridge was also deliberate. Yes, I think that these things are all deliberate. I do not think that they are actually accidental at all. Tell me, then, what happens when they are found to be deliberate? I think that it is very difficult. You can imagine how difficult it is to try and apprehend someone who is carrying grayfish around. You have to be there by the time when it takes a couple of grayfish in a bucket and you throw them in. Unless the police are there at the point of introduction, there is very little that you can do about it. You can imagine that in many water systems, once those things are in, they are in. The chances of removing them are slim to none in most occasions unless you can manipulate that point in some way by draining it and removing those individual animals. The unfortunate thing about it is that the grayfish, once they have been introduced, may take many years to become established. You may not actually come across them until the population is established. Usually, a lot of those records come from anglers. Anglers see them on the bank or in the shallow waters. The potential for accidental introductions are relatively slim. I think that, on balance, those things have been introduced deliberately. On a rating of 1 to 10, what would you consider to be the cause of most infestation? Would it be accidental or deliberate? I would say that it is about 9.9 out of 10 deliberate and 0.1 accidental. If that is the case, what are you doing to stop us from harming? Well, first of all, the key thing here is about awareness. We have, for example, ran several workshops and training events for RAF staff, for S&H staff, for the police to highlight the dangers of introducing these things. There is lots of signage for signal crayfish and lots of leaflets for signal crayfish. At the end of the day, that is really the key thing, is about awareness, to prevent those things from being delivered. We are trying to educate people as to the dangers of what the transport of those animals is and the fact that, once those things have been introduced, they are in all likelihood there over the long term. In England, would you say that it would be the same percentage at 9.9 and would it be the same abroad at 9.9? I cannot speak for what happens to the border, and they are very different. Well, the reason I asked that question is that, surely, if there is more accidental than prevention, then obviously they are doing something to stop that prevention. Is it something that you can maybe find out and come back to that? You can take it away with me. I can perhaps add a little detail to Colin's response on the awareness raising and so on. Dumfries and Galloway is ahead of other parts of Scotland in having a regional invasive non-native species working group that has been working since 2010. It is a model that other parts of Scotland might want to follow in due course as we start to think about how we tackle the range of invasive non-native species. Some of the work, specifically on signal crayfish, has been focused very much on targeting information that people need to know in relation to the legal status of crayfish and fishing. After the minister's meeting at the Cat Strand in Dumfries and Galloway in July last year, there were frequently asked questions, leaflet produced by C-Pan SNH, to help clarify the legal situation. That was then sent to all the people who had attended the strand, and then it was also distributed quite widely through community newsletters in the Loch Ken area. On top of that, the CEPA has been working with Police Scotland to translate the signal crayfish posters into a number of languages because eating signal crayfish is potentially something that people from Eastern European countries may come here with a cultural interest in. We are trying to create something that is useful for perhaps parts of the population who are more interested traditionally in crayfish in languages that they have been able to understand more clearly, potentially. What evidence either from Scotland or anywhere around the world is that issuing licenses for trapping would incentivise people to move crayfish into new areas? From Europe, Sweden and Spain, the establishment of new license fisheries has led to the establishment of new unlicensed populations. Is that related to deliberately moving into commercial gain? Absolutly. There would be no incentive otherwise to move signal crayfish from those fisheries to other water bodies unless you had planned to exploit them at some point. What about the suggestions that CEPA and SNH could support trapping on a not-for-profit basis if operators worked closely with organisations if perhaps the market incentive was taken out of the trapping? That is not similar to the situation in England, as we have seen. There is a license fishery, yet crayfish are still found in new areas. The English suggestion suggests that even where those areas are tightly controlled, new populations continue to appear. If there was a license fishery to become established in Loch Kèn, then there are other populations that are relatively close to that, which also have signal crayfish in them. Would there be calls to establish a fishery in those? For example, I would point towards the upper clade. The upper clade has a particularly bad problem with signal crayfish. It is in the central bill that is within touching distance of two of the biggest conurbations in the country. That would be incredibly difficult to control, I feel. If you believe then that the license is not the answer, what are you going to do then to help to eradicate us? That is the point of it. You cannot eradicate them. That is a key point to get across. The point that I am trying to get across is that our first objective must be to prevent those animals from being moved elsewhere in the first place. By creating a market for them, we create the conditions that would exacerbate or accelerate the spread of those animals to new areas. I mentioned the bias side of eradication treatments that we have pioneered largely in Scotland. We have looked at a range of different techniques for the control of crayfish. We thought that eradication might have been a possibility when the first arrived and we were younger and naive at things like hand removal, electrofishing and trapping. We may have offered a prospect of eradication, but they do not offer the prospect of eradication. That is not to say that, through further developments, eradication is an impossibility. There are other people who we work with, in other parts of the UK, for example, working on different strategies that we can possibly use to expand into Scotland. For example, the use of poison baits, for example. The targeting removal of animals at particular life stages, whether they might be more vulnerable when they are molting or when they are carrying eggs in young, that type of approach. We are always on the lookout for new techniques. We are at the forefront of trying to look for new techniques. There are a number of PhD programmes in Scotland that are looking at the crayfish issue. We are looking at new ways of trying to rapidly identify where those animals can be found. We are using a very state-of-the-art type techniques, such as environmental DNA, to give us a forewarning of where those animals are, so that we can move in and try to take action as quickly as we possibly can. Even when those animals are not visible to river users or anglers or whoever, we can move in and try to target those populations before they can become fully established. I think that it would be a mistake to feel that in Scotland we are doing nothing. I think that it was a view that was expressed in one submission to the committee. There is a lot of work going on in Scotland, a lot of work going on with our other sister agencies in England and also a lot of work going on in Europe as well. There is no slacking insofar as our endeavours to try to find ways of dealing with the issue that we are concerned with. It is not an issue of saying, well, we have put our hands up, we are going to forget about it and let everything slide. Jackson? Good morning. Sorry, there seem to me to be two aspects of the discussion that we are having this morning. One is a quite interesting discussion about the containment of signal crayfish and one is about the petition. We have had a very extended discussion about the first part and a very little part of discussion about the second. I did not know anything about this before the petitioner brought it to us. It is typical, I think, in the petitions committee. We do not get all manner of different subjects to come to us and we just have to do our best to read through all the paperwork. However, I have to say that I am bound to the conclusion that is an awful lot of provocation and that our strategy appears to be one that relies at the end of the day on signage leaflets and posters. With lots of talk about everything else happening and lots of work and discussion and the like. I am interested to know where you think of what you think the prognosis is for the strategy that we are employing. Ten years from now, do you expect American signal crayfish to have colonised more waterways in Scotland or not? I think the likelihood is yes, they will have done and I think that the cause of that will be through human movement. Can I ask about Sweden and Spain, because you made reference to them, where there has been a licensing scheme and you said that this led to the introduction into other waterways of the fish. Were licences then granted for those additional waterways into which that unofficial extension of the population was furthered? I do not have that information in front of me, unfortunately, but I think that there is... You do not know whether, in fact, the granting of licences led to an expansion of the population which led to further licences that allowed for their commercial exploitation. What I do know is that the granting of licences led to the expansion of new populations, which again, obviously, created an issue. You do not know that. I am sorry, with respect. You do not know that, because you have accepted that without a licence regime in this country, 10 years from now, you expect the population to have extended itself as a consequence of no licence regime but simply the casual introduction of the population. So we have a situation in Sweden and Spain where there is a commercial licence, where the population has expanded and you choose to attest that that is because a licence was granted, but you cannot tell me that licences were subsequently granted for the commercial exploitation of those additional populations, in which case there would have been no commercial advantage in having done so. That is correct. On the basis that information happened in front of me, yes. Thank you. Can I return to the petition itself? Because I thought you skated very quickly over what Mr MacAskill asked, which is the petitioner is asking why this is not unsupportable on a licence and not for profit basis. Where there is no commercial exploitation, where all the proceeds that would be raised in Loch Ken, which is now deeply infested, would be used for the future scientific research and teaching and examination of the very issues that you are trying to contain and for the benefit, obviously, of the local community as a result of the trapping and sale of the animals. But on a not-for-profit basis, where there is no commercial exploitation for commercial gain, I mean, I understand that we do not want to see these things spread, but given that in Sweden and Spain you cannot actually attest that there is any evidence that there was further commercial gain as a result of these licences being granted, where is the evidence in your mind that says that a not-for-profit scheme is not an alternative, which is worth considering? We did not say that we would not consider it, and we have always said to— You did? You said to Mr McCaskill who asked the question that you have ruled us out. No, actually. We have obviously had a number of licence applications for Loch Ken, and what we have continually said to Loch Ken in fact in our last licence application in March 2013 was that we would be happy to look at any application that you put forward, which was scientifically based and could provide good evidence and monitoring that the crayfish population could be controlled. That is what we have said to— Yes, but that is not what he is saying. He is saying that, in fact, this could fund the very scientific research that seems to be rather meagre at the moment. Well, I do not accept that the scientific research is meagre. How much is being spent? And I think that—I am asking a question—how much is currently being spent? How much is currently being spent? I do not have that figure to hand. How can you tell me then that it is not meagre? Because I know the projects that are on going. Perhaps you could itemise them for the committee and let us know how much is currently being spent. You see, I just feel that there seems to me to be a collective—I come across this sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly, but I find that a collective received wisdom, which has a momentum all of its own. I accept—I am wholly in support of not wanting to see those populations expand, but I am not entirely clear in a place like Loch Keny, where it is infested, why the not-for-profit solution that might fund additional research harvest that population inevitably leads to it happening elsewhere. But even if it did in relation to the Clyde, I am still not—actually, what would be wrong with a not-for-profit harvesting operation in the Clyde if this too was raising funds which were exclusively deployed into future scientific research and teaching? I see a distinction in my own mind between that and the commercial exploitation for profit, which seems to be, I think, an incentive, although not one way can demonstrate internationally actually happened. I would go back to a situation in our own country and look at the situation in England and Wales where it has been licenced— A bit not—but licenced on what basis? Licenced in terms of the exploitation of crayfish for personal consumption— But not for not-for-profit? No, for sale. There is crayfish sold from England and Wales and exported to the continent. Yeah, but that is my point. That is commercial exploitation. Absolutely. I am drawing a distinction between that and not-for-profit, where no profit could be generated from that. Who will carry out this not-for-profit work? If you look at the petition, it mentions 50 trappers and 130 full-time equivalent jobs or whatever. There is no business case associated with that. There is a finger in the air, frankly. It is a finger in the air, surely, in a sense of desperation, because absolutely nothing of any consequence has been attempted that has been successful otherwise. In Loch Kenne? In Loch Kenne. Because the chances of eradication of crayfish from Loch Kenne are zero. Absolutely. Until there was an experimental trapping, there was not even any understanding of the population itself. Is that not correct? That is absolutely true, but we knew that there was a substantial population. And how, then, do we know that it has had no effect on the overall population? The trapping? Yes. Well, we know from work elsewhere that trapping does not result in the eradication of those programmes. In fact, some of the— Can I quote something from Mr Ribbons of the Galloway Fisheries Trust? The initial five-month research has indicated that a heavy trapping programme may be able to have a significant impact on the present crayfish population. Yes. It can have an impact without eradication, though. I didn't say eradication. And what will happen, then, is that, as you remove the catchable stock, then you relieve things like the predation pressure, the competition pressure, and you have what's called compensatory growth. That means that the population will not be reduced. It means that you have the same biomass of animals, a bit more of them. That sounds to me like a theory, not a fact. But it's not a theory. It's been demonstrated for all species, such as pike, for example, as well, and pike in education programmes. Part of the licensing proof is that whoever the trapper is has got to catch sex wire a z per year and received a number of dimensions. Is that not a form of managing the crayfish? That goes back to my earlier point there about monitoring, and how would you manage that fishery? As you remember, this is a fishery in perpetuity. Until, like everyone else, you probably have a massive dent in the numbers of catchable size, largely adult animals, but left with a population of smaller animals that are growing much faster, which are still reproducing. So you end up with a situation where you have a reduction in the catchable component, but it's still the same problem and the same damage, which, as has been said, has denuded a lock-in of all of its biodiversity. That's a statement that has never been substantiated. I had the impact that it has on fisheries. We don't know what the impact is on fisheries, and that's one of the reasons why we have a fisheries project about to kick off. If you look at the websites of many of the hotels around Loch N, plenty of photographs of people with large bags of fish. Fish are not missing from Loch N. So, yes, I think that undoubtedly crayfish will have had an impact. The scale of that impact is not clear. It's probably unlikely that we'll ever know, because crayfish have been in there for so long. What baseline might we use? To throw a bunch of crayfish traps in and that would solve the problem, I think, is frankly not true. It seems to me, Mr Beane, that you're saying that it's very unlikely that we'll ever eradicate crayfish, but at the same time you seem to be saying that you don't want to put anything in place that might perhaps manage it. So, John Molson. Thank you, convener. Good morning. The issue, and I'll just follow on from Jackson Carlaw, is the issue about the licensing, and it seems to be getting this confusion between commercial licensing of crayfisheries or a licence, because no one can actually catch or lift a signal crayfish out of the water without fear of prosecution if they get caught. My understanding is that the petition is asking for a licence to be granted to allow people to remove the signal crayfish from the waters and trap those fish, not on a commercial basis, but on the basis of trying to hinder the population growth of the signal crayfish in that area. Now, what would be the problem of issuing a licence to allow individuals to go in and trap signal crayfish, not on a commercial basis, but to trap them to eradicate them from that, or trying to eradicate them from that watercourse? Okay. There's already quite a lot of illegal crayfish fishing going on in Scotland, including in Lorkenn. Trapping to alleviate pressures on, say, for example, areas of Lorkenn in the event of a fishing event is something that we have discussed with Jamie Rubbins in the past in relation to Lorkenn. We have never closed the door on that. We think that, but at the end of the day, any proposal to trap on a large scale in Lorkenn has to be part of a rational management programme. I don't think that that's an unreasonable stance to take, actually. What we would not support, though, is some gung-ho invitation to crayfish trappers around the UK and elsewhere to come and exploit this in a way that has not managed, and is a way that we've possibly ended up causing more damage to Scotland PLC in terms of creating a market that might accelerate the spread to new areas. Professor Ben, I don't think that the petitioners are actually looking to get other trappers from elsewhere in the UK to come into this stretch of water. I think that what they're trying to do in this petition is to protect the water that's there and to get a licence to be able to trap the signal crayfish that are there. The issue that you've raised about is a rational management programme. Can CEPA and SNH not sit down with the individuals that you claim you have to actually work out a rational management programme to try and help to limit the spread of and growth of the signal crayfish population? You won't actually have seen this, but this is a letter from us to Mr Tom, which we sent following a meeting with him in March 4, 2013, in which we said, if you allow me to quote, we discussed other licensing options in SNH, and it intimated that we would be able to licence a non-commercial project with a clear management aim, which is supported with a clear scientific methodology. Such applications would also require a sound monitoring and evaluation element, as well as being fully biosecure. A less robust proposal runs considerable risk of expending considerable time and resource with little or no benefit to any party. Unfortunately, we know from bitter experience that considerable cost and intensive trapping of crayfish simply does not work as a means of crayfish control. We are not on to say towards that. We hope to find information of use. We would be happy to reconsider any application supported by a robust plan that takes into account the issues raised in this letter. As we discussed at a meeting, once you have developed a plan and have the personnel in any funding required in place, we would be happy to discuss this further with you. That does not sound to me as if we have been unreasonable to Mr Tom. Just to go back, Professor, I have been once again in response to a question by Jackson Carlaw. Jackson Carlaw tried to press you on how much money was being spent in terms of academic research in that area. Would it not be possible to work with the local individuals who want to eradicate signal crayfish to bring in that academic support? As you said, you disputed Mr Carlaw's assertion that there was very little money being spent in terms of academic research. Would it not be an issue in relation to providing the support from SNH and SEPA to allow the local community to carry out that monitoring programme in conjunction with the academic support that you claim is currently involved in monitoring signal crayfish in Scotland? First of all, I think that the PhDs are referred to role working on separate particular issues of crayfish biology. Some of them have worked in Loch Ken in the past. For example, I think that the minister knows. I think that in terms of directing research, money is towards Loch Ken specifically or crayfish generally. SNH did include signal crayfish as a species within the species action framework, which ran from 2007 to 2012, where we spent a lot of resource into the management and science of signal crayfish. I think that in terms of trying to provide support in terms of the science and the element of any management proposal for Loch Ken, of course, we would be able to provide that scientific support of that advice that would be required. That sounds hopeful that you can work with the local community to provide that scientific support to allow some programme to take place. I am rather concerned with the issues that you mentioned in your opening statement about the 174 kilometres of waterways that are infected by signal crayfish. You said that that was 0.1 per cent of the waterways in Scotland, compared to the comparison with England and Wales, but you then went on to talk about the Tari Pond and Coal Bridge. You said that that was a deliberate introduction of signal crayfish. Can you remind me what are the enforcement powers of SNH and SEPA in relation to people who are seen to be breaching the non-invasive species legislation? Yes, it is clearly set out in the Wildlife and Countries Act, which was strengthened by the Wain Act in 2012. I cannot remember what the monetary penalties are, or the custodial ones, but certainly it is illegal to introduce any animal to any place outwith its natural range. I do not think that anyone would argue that signal crayfish, which originate from North America, are in any way within their natural range in the UK, Europe or Scotland. Professor Bain, in relation to the Tari Pond, you made reference to the police catching the individuals who were introduced to the signal crayfish. Is it the police that carry out the enforcement action, or is it SNH or SEPA that carry out the enforcement action? It is the police. It is the police that would need to sit there at the side of the pond to catch somebody introducing the signal crayfish, or somebody trapping the signal crayfish when they started carrying out fisheries activities in that pond. Can you remind us how the Tari Pond incident and the signal crayfish were brought to your attention? It was brought to my attention by the local fishery trust. The local fisheries trust monitored a number of ponds and a number of waterways around the North Lanarkshire area. The Clyde River Foundation, the fishery trust that I am talking about in this regard, carried out a piece of work for SNH to try and put together a strategic plan for invasive non-native species removal. As a result of that, it has been looking at records that have been held by the local rangers and councils. It came to our attention, and it was a possibility that the signal crayfish may have been introduced to the Tari Pond, and they went and investigated that themselves and found signal crayfish at the Tari Pond. I am assuming that it was a member of the public that went to the trust and informed them that the signal crayfish were suspected to be in that pond. I would suspect that it was probably a member of the public that went to the local countryside ranger and that it came to the fishery trust through that means, and then they informed. My concern is, convener, that we have an incident like the Tari Pond, which could be replicated 100 times throughout Scotland with individual trusts only being their attention being drawn to by a member of the public notifying the trust. What you are saying is that there are 174 kilometres of waterways contaminated. We know that the can is contaminated, but we do not know what the full-scale contamination of signal crayfish in Scotland may be, so what you are presenting to us in terms of 174 kilometres of waterways and the other small locations that you have referred to may actually just be the tip of the iceberg, because there may be other areas, and you kept on referring to the upper Clyde. You knew that upper Clyde is a heavy infestation of signal crayfish. The upper Clyde flows into the Clyde and has the river course that runs through the Clyde valley. How do we curtail or eliminate the signal crayfish spread along the Clyde and potentially along every other water course that feeds off the Clyde or into the Clyde? First of all, I think that you are right. I think that there are probably more populations there than we know about. Insofar as the Clyde is concerned, there is no prospect of removing crayfish from the Clyde. There seems to be no real prospect of halting that spread. It is a very difficult thing to do. Animals are moving downstream rather than upstream. In fact, we installed the first of its type, a crayfish barrier, at the head of the Clyde in Clyde's burn, precisely to stop signal crayfish from moving from the head of the Clyde into the river annan system. Having said that crayfish are poor powers of dispersal, the reason that we used that approach there was because the upper reaches of the Clyde and the upper reaches of the annan are actually connected through a system of field drains, so it is not as if they walked across the land as they actually could get there through a series of drains. That was the logic to that. However, going downstream, yes, the sad fact to the matter is that these animals will be moving downstream when they have done so since they were first found there in the late 90s, too. In fact, treating smaller pons with biocide to eradicate crayfish is certainly a possibility. Using a biocide in a particular river, the size of the Clyde, is a non-starter. The other issue for me, convener, is really the issue about trying to protect our own indigenous species that are actually in these waterways. You mentioned earlier, now we have tried to read—well, the salmon have been coming back up the Clyde with the signal crayfish preditation measures. They will basically eradicate the salmon at the upper Clyde and basically that could end the salmon population coming into the Clyde or leaving the Clyde. We have also got a number of other protected species. For instance, you mentioned co-bridge. I know that SWT has indicated that the third-largest population of great crested newts just sits outside co-bridge and if signal crayfish were to get into those water courses and ponds, that would be the eradication, potentially, of the great crested newt in that area. What are SNH and SIPA doing to try and protect those species if you are saying that there is very little that we can do to eradicate those signal crayfish? It is very difficult to identify specific actions to protect those areas other than to prevent their introduction. The areas that you have described for great crested newts in the police league are gosh. I am not a great crested newt expert, but I would imagine that crayfish getting into those systems would have an absolutely devastating impact on them. I think that those areas are monitored very regularly by SWT and others. If crayfish were to enter those systems, those are the sorts of areas that we would probably have a start on in terms of being able to act very quickly. Thank you, convener. I have no further questions. Thank you very much, convener. I am very aware of time and will be as brief as I possibly can. I have a considerable local vested interest in this, because I live about 200 yards from the top of Loch Ken. This has been a growing issue ever since I moved to that part of the world in 1998. I want to put a little local perspective on this, because Professor Bean said in his introduction that Scotland is renowned for the quality of its rivers, and I absolutely accept that. Loch Ken was, for many many years, also renowned for the quality of its coarse fishing. I laugh a little bit when I hear about initiatives to promote the opportunities for angling at Loch Ken, because for many many years Loch Ken promoted itself. The hotels that were mentioned, you only have to look at their guest books and their reservation books to see that fishermen have voted with their feet no longer to come to Loch Ken in anything like the numbers they did. This is not because the fish are not there to catch, it is because as soon as their bait gets within a few inches of the bottom of the Loch, where it needs to be to catch the fish, it gets taken by the signal crayfish. It is so numerous that you can barely fish coarse fish in Loch Ken, and as I say, the hotel's reservation records will absolutely back that up. What has happened is that you have a huge hole created in the local economy by the almost uncontrollable spread of this invasive species. The problem from the local perspective, despite everything that we have heard about on-going works and to look into this problem, is frankly one of complacency. Yes, there are leaflets and notice boards extolling the virtues of cleaning your equipment before you leave, even if it is not just fishing. That has been on-going for some years, but despite everything that we have heard—I am not questioning any of what we have heard, really—the fact is, and it is admitted that the spread continues. What we are looking at is that all the measures that we have heard about and that are being taken are simply delaying the inevitable. Even the barrier that was erected at the head of the Clyde, which I think I am right in saying, cost £50,000, so it is a significant amount of preventative money. I think that it is admitted that it will simply delay the inevitable and hold back the spread of crayfish. It was said that they are not good movers. There are people who dispute that. A lot of people say that they are very good movers and that they can move up to two miles by night. I am aware of time and I am aware that this will be an on-going issue for the committee. I wonder if, when you are writing back to the committee, you could identify for us, if it would be helpful, because I would find it helpful. The number of examples where a biocidal solution has been used, because I think that that would be useful. I appreciate that there is a scale issue in that, because some of the size of log can, it is almost certainly not going to be effective, but it would be good to know that. I wonder if I could just ask, maybe by way of wrapping up my contribution, convener, when does an invasive species become an indigenous species? It seems to me that an invasive species is something that ought to be able to be eradicated. If it cannot be eradicated, it then becomes indigenous. Once we have an indigenous species, I think that it can be looked upon in a different way, because I think that there has to be a solution to this problem that involves trapping, not necessarily commercialisation. It is admitted that they are not going to stop them. We cannot eradicate them, but they can surely be managed in a way that is not happening at the moment. That has to, at the moment, I think involve trapping. If we would accept that this species is no longer invasive but indigenous, then we could look upon it in a different way. Finally, convener, much has been made the fact that this is a very small problem in Scotland compared to the rest of the UK. That suggests to me that, because it is a comparatively small problem, we could have a much greater focus on it in trying to find a solution because it is much easier to identify in its various locations. However, it also seems to me that if there is genuine research going on into this, it would be hugely logical to bring it together in a place such as Loch Keddon, which is probably where the greatest population is. At least the local people, the local population, could see that the complacency that I referred to earlier on is not a reality. I will leave it at that. Probably the final question is that both of your organisations are publicly funded and just fallen on from what Mr Ferguson said there. Where in your priority list does the removal of the indigenous species lie? SNH's priorities are set by the Government themselves in our grant and aid letter. Certainly, in terms of invading on nativism and the set of context, it is clearly a major cause of biodiversity loss. There have been plenty of examples where radical action has taken place, not just for species that are not native to Scotland or the UK, but also situations in which species have been introduced to other parts of Scotland to which they are not native, such as hedgehogs in the western isles. There is a tremendous amount of resource being expended on, the invasive issue, but where it falls in the list of priorities, if you like. I think that everything nowadays is a priority, frankly, but we do expend a significant amount of resource in this area. I should have said that the invasive species are, and I apologise for that. Any further questions? Can I now ask the committee to say what action it wishes to take on this petition? Members have a note by the clerk suggesting a possible course of action. What are the members' views? You agree with the course of action? I would very much like to reflect on everything that I have heard today. I think that there might be one or two more bits of information that will come as a result of the discussion that we have had, and then at a subsequent meeting to give some thought to what actions we might be able to recommend or progress. Members agree then to reflect on that. Thank you very much, colleagues. I thank Dr Massen and Professor Beane for their evidence session today, and I will now suspend the meeting for a couple of minutes. The next item of business is consideration of two new petitions. The committee will hear from the petitioners in each case. The first new petition is PE1563 by Doryn Goldie on behalf of Avonbridge and Stanburn Community Council on sewage sludge spreading. Members have a note by the clerk and a spice briefing. I am aware that, after the committee's papers were issued, a motion in the name of Margaret Mitchell and an amendment in the name of Angus MacDonald has been put down. Can I welcome petitioner Doryn Goldie to the meeting? She is accompanied by her colleague from the community council, Jo Hearst. I now invite Ms Goldie to speak to her petition for no more than five minutes and to explain what her petition seeks, after which we will move to questions. Thank you for allowing us to further discuss our petition, PE1563. We are basically seeking to greatly improve the overall management, the effective treatment and storage of sewage sludge and ultimately its safe disposal. We are suggesting that this process be entirely contained and controlled by a responsible and accountable body. At present, we feel that the system is failing. A reason for making this request has come about due to our first-hand experience over the last six years of continually raising this issue through our involvement with the community councils and with feedback from local residents raising their concerns and making complaints that are, in our opinion, justifiable. Due to the existing practices, we find the main failings in particular to be. Noxious orders last for days longer in some instances from spreading or stockpiling of the material risks to human and animal health as a result of spreading the material. The environmental and biological impact of long-term use where it is not being adequately monitored, contamination of water courses and soils, traffic movements are uncontrolled, spillage of this material on public carriageways, improper storage, mobile licence flaws, planning issues, lack of planning issues. We would look to Scottish Government to adopt a comprehensive approach across Scotland for the treatment of sewage sludge to end the current inconsistencies and to ensure a controlled and uniform protection is in place for all inhabitants of Scotland. We further appreciate the issue of sewage sludge as an ever-increasing problem due to the continuing population growth. However, we believe that there are better practices currently in use elsewhere in the UK and Europe that should be adopted so wet spreading can be avoided. If the practice continues as it is, then in a short space of time we could well render some of our agricultural land chemically contaminated and in turn destroy some of our ecosystems. We are of the opinion that the Scottish Government needs to adopt best practices as used satisfactorily elsewhere and serious investment into achieving a suitable and useful end product which, when properly treated and managed, has recognised beneficial uses. I understand that, since submitting your petition, community representatives may have met the Scottish Government representatives. Is that correct? How confident are you that your concerns have been taken forward? We have been to attend a number of meetings with SEPA, Scottish Water, Margaret Mitchell, and we are fairly confident that our concerns are now being recognised, although it has taken a considerable amount of time to get to the stage that we are now at. It has been accepted by both Scottish Water and SEPA when we met on 17 March that there are inconsistencies in current legislation and that there are gaps between those organisations and the problems that we have highlighted as a result of those inconsistencies and the gaps between whose authority it is to deal with current problems and whether or not they have the legislation or the necessary powers. It is the lack of powers to manage the issues that we have been suffering from. Since we produced some information to Scottish Water, it ceased supplying the main contractor immediately with the wet material. It is now supplying dry pellet form, but the supplier is still obtaining the material from other sources that are unrecognised and unmonitored. Thank you, convener. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to contribute as a local member covering the upper braze area. As members have heard from Torian Goldie and Joe Hearst, the issue has been on-going for some time, six years, as we have heard, and it has caused significant inconvenience to many of the constituents in the upper braze area, and it has been frustrating for everyone involved. It is worth noting that we are in this position thanks to an EU directive a few years ago that banned the dumping of sewage sludge at sea. Whether or not you agree with that directive, it has left us in the position that we are now in. As Ms Goldie and Joe Hearst are aware, I and my staff in my constituency office have been working on this issue for some time. As recently as a week ago, a week ago yesterday, I met with senior Scottish Water officials to discuss the current situation. I am pleased to say that both Scottish Water, SEPA and the Scottish Government have taken note of the inconvenience and the impact that the spread of sludge has had on the local community. For example, as we have just heard, Scottish Water confirmed to me that sewage sludge has been directed away from Falkirk district, and there has been no sludge to Joe Craig, for example, for three to four months. Scottish Water has stopped tankers delivering there. However, there is one further problem that arose or came to light during my meeting with Scottish Water, which has not been covered by the petition. It seems that food waste has been transported to a lagoon at the Joe Craig site with 68 lorries a day passing through. It is not sewage that is arriving on a daily basis, but it is food waste. I have asked SEPA to investigate that further, and we will pick up on those points as well that further investigation is required. I agree with the petitioners that we must look for alternative methods of disposal as adopted in other non-European countries. In Sweden, for example, only 14 per cent of sewage is spread on land, and in the Netherlands, the vast majority of its sewage incinerates, although the percentage escapes me, but it is significantly higher than it is in other countries in Northern Europe. It is pretty high, so about 80 per cent, I think. I have been lobbying behind the scenes for an increase in capacity for incineration of sewage and raising it in the chamber as recently as the 22nd of April. I hope that that is covered in the sewage sludge review, which I am told that it will be released in mid to late summer. When clearly you have had a number of meetings with the Scottish Government, have you made a formal submission to the sewage sludge review, or have they taken notes from the meetings? We have actually only had one meeting with two representatives of the Scottish Government, one actual employee of the Scottish Government and one employee of SEPA that is currently on a year's convent working with that person. That was on 17 March, when we were up at the SEPA offices in March in Stirling. That is the only actual meeting that we have had with representatives from the Scottish Government. We have indicated that we would like to have a public meeting with them. We have indicated that we would like to have further meetings with them. We would also like to be involved in the review, but, as yet, we have heard nothing else from them. I think that there will still be an opportunity for you to feed into that review. It opened on 6 March. We would like the opportunity to feed into the review. I recall emailing your office asking for an invitation to be included in the review process. Obviously, that is something that we would be interested in. It seems to have been quite a slow process to actually get to the review stage. I hope that you would also take into account that we are new to this. We have learned on the hop as it were over the past number of years how to try and respond to a lot of them. Unfortunately, I have found that everything is a slow process when it comes to trying to make changes to procedures or legislation. Presumably, you have done some research yourself with regard to alternative alternatives, for example large-scale anaerobic digestion or, indeed, incineration. Would that be part of your submission? We could certainly supply a number of pieces of material that is easily available to give background information on alternative methods of disposal. What I would like to point out is that we recognise that there is beneficial uses to this material. The problem that we have is that the contractor who is carrying out this work is not being monitored adequately. It would not matter if it was another contractor. What you have in place at the moment is not working. You have Scottish Water involved, you have SEPA involved, the planning department. There is a breakdown between all those departments where one crosses over to pick up in the other area. There is no consistency of an end product. Because there are these failings, it is being exploited to the detriment of the soil and the contamination that we believe is going on, because it is not being adequately monitored. We keep coming back to this. That is what needs tackling. The other thing to add to that is that, when we spoke to SEPA, it highlighted that they only have four officers dealing with the whole of Scotland and that they do not have the resources to either sample or monitor. Therefore, they rely on the three main contractors they have throughout Scotland to do their own self-monitoring. They do their own self-sampling, they submit that chemical analysis and they submit that to SEPA. That is open to abuse. There are no records as to where their samples are taken from. There are no records as to when their samples are taken. There is no management of that process. Therefore, they cannot be relied on because it is not independently tested. We would like to see all sewage treated to the same level throughout Scotland and treated at source. Whatever product is decided upon, it is distributed directly by the one body that treats the sewage, which, most sensibly, might be Scottish Water. That is not for us to dictate. From the research that we have done, we see that the transportation of that across vast tracts of land, by various different contractors and subcontractors, is causing a huge detriment. It impacts on our transport system. It impacts in various different ways. That is all for your comment. I am sorry, convener, that we are localising this. It is not just a localised problem in Folker. We are combined with nine different community councils around our area that we know about, which includes Torward and Larbott. It includes areas in Stirling. It includes areas of Lanarkshire that we have been in touch with. That is what we are aware of. We are volunteers. We do this in our own time. We do not have vast arrays of resources. However, in discussing the issues with SEPA, we know that they are experiencing this nationwide. There are issues in the Highlands and Islands. There are issues in the North East. There are issues in Dumfries. That is what has come out of the discussions that we have had with SEPA to date. I was just going to say that, with regard to the meeting that I had with Scottish Water a week ago yesterday, they are seriously considering taking all the management of sewage in-house, which is certainly good news. With regard to enforcement action, we will shortly be seeing the benefits of the regulator reform bill that recently went through Parliament. SEPA will have greater powers to use greater enforcement powers and fines that they have never had before, which will help to concentrate minds on some of the operators who have practices that deserve further scrutiny. You mentioned earlier about dry pellet use. Somebody who comes from an area surrounded by farms and the sludge that is used in our area and the smell could be, and I appreciate where you come from, horrendous at times. Has a dry pellet use made a huge difference? The benefit from that has probably not been so apparent, because there has been stockpiles of wet sewage sludge that had to get removed quickly. The problem that we have as well coming back to the sewage sludge and the stockpiles is that it is not immediately dug in, in some instances, where it should be. That is one of the regulations where it should be immediately dug in. The contractor has been allowed to leave it stockpiling or the farmers, in fact, are leaving it to stockpile. It is sitting on the surface, open to the elements for weeks or months on end, but coming back to the dry pellets, I cannot say that there has been any noticeable difference in some of the areas, because there is still some of this other material that is coming in from outwith or other than Scottish water from other sources. It is hard to tell. We are not aware of any dry pellets that have been spread to date. We are not aware of any dry pellets that are in the area. We are just aware of wet stockpiles and the wet slurry that is still being spread. I know that you mentioned that you have been in touch with a number of community councils that live in the central belt as well. I know that there is dumping of human waste in certain areas near where I live. There is an internationally known business that is trying to report one of the landowners next door because of the impact that they might have on their business if people realised what was being dumped next door to them. Clearly, there is an issue in terms of how waste is being disposed of. The meeting that you had with the Scottish Government official and the SEPA representative, was there any mention in relation to the review of consulting community councils throughout Scotland? I am a bit concerned that the review seems to sound as though it is an internal review, rather than a public consultation review. Clearly, that type of review should include, in my view, the community councils throughout Scotland being asked to make submission and other concerns or issues that they face almost on a daily basis with this sludge. That has been a concern of ours because we have asked on more than one occasion that the community councils and members of the public who have shown great interest in and who have had to endure this for a number of years be included in the review process because it is through them that we have been given all this information and we can present this to the people who can make the changes. If you had had this odor emanating from the centre of Edinburgh, I can guarantee that it would not have been going on for six years. Our understanding is that it is currently a closed review and it is not open to consultations with community councils throughout Scotland. That was a point that we raised in our meeting on the 17th and that is something that we have requested. We persisted with that with Margaret Mitchell and asked her to raise that on our behalf as well. It was raised in the meeting that was held in Slemann in last August with Angus MacDonald and we requested that we be allowed to make representation and other community councils be invited to do the same. I ask the committee what it wishes to do with the petition. What action would you like to take? Can we invite a Scottish Water and Sea Point to give us evidence, please? I think that that would be helpful, convener. I do not know if that can be done before a summer recess, but it would be helpful if it could be before the review is completed. I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government because, while it is useful to write to Sea Point in the Scottish Water, it is acting under instruction from the Scottish Government. The question that I would like to ask the Scottish Government is why the decision was taken to have this as a closed review and it is not open for public consultation. I do believe that any review of this nature has to take on board the concerns of communities throughout Scotland. If it is a closed review, then any findings of that review will not truly reflect the experiences of the communities throughout, particularly central Scotland, but much wider in relation to the impact of the disposal of this material. When you look at the guidance in terms of how you can dispose of this material, there is hardly an area in Scotland that has not been affected by heavy rainfall. One of the conditions is that you are not supposed to put the material on saturated ground, and clearly that is happening. We request that we write to the Scottish Government to ask why the decision was taken to have this as a closed review, and that any review should be full public consultation and time should be taken to consider the responses from the public and, in particular, community councils on this issue. A couple of action points raised there in relation to a meeting with the Scottish War and Sipa. We will see if that is possible before the summer recess. The second point was raised by John Molson that we should be writing to the Scottish Government in relation to the public consultation that should be part of this review. Secondly, we could also ask the Scottish Government to take into consideration the issues that have been raised by the petitioner here today. The second new petition is PE1564 by James Treasurer on behalf of Friends of the Great Glen on saving Loch Ness and the Great Glen. Members have a note by the clerk and a spiced briefing. Can I welcome the petitioner, James Treasurer, to the meeting? I now invite Mr Treasurer to speak to his petition for no more than five minutes to explain what his petition seeks, and we will then move forward to questions. Good morning, Mr Treasurer. Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to speak to you. I give you my greetings from the Great Glen. I left it there this morning. It is obviously a scenic area of international importance, absolutely stunning. I represent a group called the Friends of the Great Glen, and we are a conservation and heritage group. We are concerned about the protection of amazingly beautiful landscapes, and we recognise that this is part of the world's most beautiful and scenic landscape. I do not think that you need any introduction to Loch Ness, so it is the most famous Loch in the world. In limnological terms, it is a lake, so it is arguably the most famous lake in the world. It is part of the Great Glen, which extends for 60 miles. In the Gaelic, it is Glen Albion, so it is the Glen of Scotland, so it has always had very special significance for the Scottish nation, and it is also of great international significance. It has more than 1 million visitors per annum, 200,000 of those are from overseas, and it is the premier tourist destination in the islands, so it is extremely important for the local economy. Our concern really is the multitude of wind farm development that is being planned and in the pipeline for the Great Glen area and the Loch Ness area, with over 500 turbines in the planning process for this area. Those are not our figures. This comes from the Scottish Natural Heritage website. I have shown the map from the website, and it also comes from Highland Council. There is no dispute about the actual number of turbines. The distressing thing is not really just the wind turbines. Basically, because they are at remote locations, it is involved hundreds of miles of pylons to connect these to national grid, hundreds of miles of access roads, building of substations, so, in fact, it has got to be really a big industrial complex for about 30 miles on each side of the Great Glen. We are extremely concerned about it and, as to whether the planning protection adequately protects this area, our evidence is that, with the scale of development, it does not. We think that it is disproportionate to this kind of level of area. What are we asking for? Really, we are looking for some form of protection. We are saying firstly that the current system, through local government and national terms, is not protecting areas that, undisputably, are of international scenic importance. It is the second largest tourist destination in Scotland. We are looking for some form of protection, and we have suggested two aspects. One is a national scenic area, and there are currently 40 in Scotland at the moment. Those are designated by Scottish natural heritage, or perhaps leading to the classification of a world heritage site. That would have to be supported by the Scottish Parliament, by the Scottish Government, and we would go to UNESCO with a suitable case to apply it as a world heritage site. That would be a question of discussion and perhaps a longer-term objective, but our contention is that this is an incredibly beautiful area. In terms of the geological process, the Great Glen Fault could qualify as a world heritage site. In terms of cultural development, if you look at the Caledonian Canal, which is an engineering masterpiece, that could also possibly qualify as a world heritage site. Our concern is with this level development, and it is really that if we do not, the Scottish Government, together with Highland Council, does not act in the next year to two years. I think that we are too late to save the Great Glen as we know it. I do not know if you recall a television programme four weeks ago, which was called Secret Britain, and there is nothing much secret about Loch Ness, but it showed a fantastic aerial shot down the Great Glen, showing Loch Loughey, Loch Oich, right up to Loch Ness. It is absolutely outstanding landscape, and I think that that speaks for itself. That is what we want to conserve and preserve for the Scottish nation. Thank you, Mr Treasure. Mr Treasure, you are calling for the area to be designated as a national scenic area. Have you approached the Scottish Government with this request and what response did you get? Well, I did approach Scottish national heritage about the conservation of the air and the planning applications, and they said that it is a statutory role to play. I have not actually approached Scottish natural heritage directly. I have only suggested that this is one of two possible routes or maybe there could be more. Maybe the members here might feel that there might be other routes and other ways of tackling this issue. It was a suggestion perhaps that this could be a national scenic area. Our contention is that national scenic areas get national protection, but it is an international scenic area that is known globally. It is part of Bran Scotland, which is the same as the Forth Road bridge in Irmercastle, and it is something that sells Scotland internationally. I note from your petition that comments were almost exclusively about wind farms rather than the designation of a national scenic area in an application for world heritage status. Do you say that this reflects people's motivation for supporting your petition? I would say that it did actually get quite a lot of comments, over 500, and I would admit that two or three were quite colourful. I think that I would like to be more objective about those things, but a lot of people were very passionate. When you read those comments, they are obviously very passionate. We are not making any political statement, and I realise that some people in the comments made a political statement. We are saying that it is not just a matter of emotion—this is part of the economy of Scotland, part of the image of Scotland—and I think that we have to preserve the great glen and Loch Ness, as it is. To ask Mr Treasurer in terms of the last part of his petition, what you have said here is an understanding of the issue by the winter buying developments and support the restoration of sites damaged by winter turbines. Can you just expand on what you mean by the restoration of the sites damaged? Would it be your view that if you did get national heritage status or international heritage status, would it be your view that you would wish to see those turbines being removed? I realise that some of those applications are in process, and there have been developments built. I am particularly thinking that we as a country should perhaps be looking things in a different kind of way. We look at landscapes where plan information has been given in the past for specific developments, which I take to use the term mutilate to the Scottish landscape, but perhaps have not been put in the correct location. I would put the emphasis very much on an ethical point of view to the developer. Would they be willing initially to remove particular turbines in particularly dominant landscapes? For example, turbines can be seen for 28 miles, so it is absolutely at large radius. It is basically to say that the developers can be removed from those particular turbines. That is why I gave the example in the photograph, the second part of evidence, from the A82. That particular development, which is four miles south of Fort Augustus, can be seen from the A82. It is a main tourist route, and every single tourist coming up that route can see that development. It is whether developments like that, perhaps the turbines should be removed. Perhaps as a country, we should be thinking of removing some of those current developments. I thank Mr Treasurer for that response. I just might be following on from turbines and tourists. Do you believe then that turbine developments harm tourists in the area? If so, what evidence do you have to support us? Can I make this clear? As I mentioned before, it is not turbines. It is hundreds of miles of pylons. You probably saw the article in the Sunday Times 10 days ago, but 46 per cent of Scotland can now be seen to energy structures. In terms of tourism, obviously this is a major economy of the highlands. A recent survey sponsored by the Scottish Government indicated that 20 per cent of tourists would adversely be impacted by this and would not visit this area. That includes certain countries such as Canada, United States, Belgium and France that are adverse to wind farms. A certain sector of the tourist economy would be damaged with very large and considerable impacts on the tourist industry. Obviously, we are quite concerned about that. In terms of the Great Glen and Loch Ness, it is difficult to gauge that at the moment because these developments have not been built. Only two wind farms have been built at the moment, but once 500 turbines are built in that area, tourists are passing through the area. They can see it from every hill point in the area. I think that undoubtedly there has to be an impact on tourism. I would say that it is common sense that you put these developments in an area that is the Highlands number one tourist destination. It is totally inappropriate. I fully concur that it is a bonny area and that we have to cherish it. I think that my limited understanding, the reason that it is Glen Albin, is that that is where the Scots tribes came when they came across from Ireland, landed in Argyll and walked through what is the Great Glen. Would you accept, though, that the topography has probably changed remarkably greatly since then, given the removal of the Caledonian rainforest, that things do not always remain static even though the vista can be beautiful? I agree that the landscape can change, but people come to Scotland to see a natural landscape, a wild landscape. I take our interpretation of a landscape can vary and it is very qualitative, our understanding of beauty. I think that everyone here can understand beauty. If you ask 100 people what is natural beauty, 99 would say that you would agree that the landscape of the area that I am speaking about is of outstanding natural beauty. They do not want to come to see something that is industrial, that is artificial. They are looking for a wild landscape, a natural landscape. Just for clarification for myself, Mr Treasure, did you say that there was a Scottish Government report that had evidence to say that turbines were a distraction for tourists? No, it did not say that. The report was actually a questionnaire some years ago, and I think that it was not really answering the right question. For this particular area, you would really have to ask tourists to come to this particular area once 500 turbines are in that area to say what do you think of this, but the report was actually looking at the impact of wind farms on tourism. It did encapsulate that 20 per cent of the respondents would not come to this area because of the disadvantage of seeing wind turbines. Many of the people come here to walk the Great Glen Way to kayak up Loch Ness to see the landscape from Loch Ness, and they are really looking for a natural landscape. Any further questions? There are no further questions. Can I ask the committee what action we would like to take in this petition? Could I therefore suggest that the committee mew is to seek written use for, for example, Highland Council, Scottish Narrative Heritage, Scottish Renewables, John Muir Trust and the Scottish Government? Members agree? Can I ask when you are right to Highland Council, can you ask if they take into account for planning permission the cumulative effect of the number of wind turbines in the area? I know that Fife Council did in the past when I was a councillor and refused to plan applications on that. I think that we could agree to ask that question. Members agree? Can I thank you, Mr Treasurer, for giving your presentation, and I will now suspend for a couple of minutes. The next item of business is consideration of seven continued petitions. The first petition is PE1319 by William Smith and Scott Robertson on improving youth football in Scotland. Members have a note by the clerk and a submission from the Children's Commissioner and the colleagues by way of opening comment. As I was not on the committee for the previous considerations of this petition, I am aware of the issues. I would like to put on record my thanks to the commissioner for this report. Clearly, there are some serious and fundamental concerns around this process, and I very much hope that this committee will pursue these bigasly. Can I invite contributions from the members? David? The convener, can I ask that we do visit this petition, but after a debate that is in Parliament, has been helped, especially if we bring the commissioner in to give us a report on its findings? In our comments? I think that there is an issue here, and therefore it would be worth hearing from the commissioner. It seems to me from my limited experience in this. It is not simply the release of the young person from the contract. It is the period of time that they can or should be retained. In the Netherlands, if you sign a youngster at an elite level, you are obliged to keep them, not discard them. Therefore, hearing from the commissioner and hearing the wider debate would address matters. It is slightly wider than simply being able to get out of the contract and the reward if anything to a youth football club. It is the obligation that a professional club has towards a youngster if they take him on. I would probably agree with that, because not being here the last time it was discussed, I certainly believe that there is a serious question in this petition. Is it appropriate that professional clubs should enter into a contract with children under 16 years of age? I am quite happy that we should bring in the commissioner and, indeed, maybe the SFA at a later date. Angus? I would agree. I think that there is a strong argument to invite the commissioner in to address the committee. With regard to David Torrance's point on the members' debate, I do not think that it will have any impact on the timescale, because I believe that the members' debates next week so, given the committee schedule, it should not cause a problem. It would be good to see if there is any further information that comes to light during the members' debate before we hear from the commissioner. Any other comments or questions? Do we agree then that we will invite the commissioner and, indeed, maybe after the commissioner, we then put an offer for the SFA to attend? I agree. The next petition is PE1480 by Amanda Cappell on behalf of the Frank Cappell Alzheimer's Awareness campaign on Alzheimer's and dementia awareness. Members have a note by the clerk, and I invite contribution from members. I am really very disappointed with where we have now managed to get this petition to and rather found itself stuck. We have heard from the cabinet secretary—in fact, I think that we might have heard from both the cabinet secretary and our predecessor, I fully recall—and I have read the latest letter, which seems to me incredibly carefully drafted to not really take matters forward one way or another. In a sense, it is two years coming up now since this petition was lodged with us. Mr Cappell has since died. We established that it was a relatively small number of people under the age of 65 affected by the issue. There seems to be widespread sympathy around the issue as well. I feel that if the Scottish Government ultimately is not going to act, I would just as soon know that as not, because I do not think that really our best interests are served by simply having this thing in a permanent status of limbo. I do not know whether that is best achieved by inviting the cabinet secretary back to establish it or whether a very direct letter is put to the cabinet secretary saying, well, you know, this is all fine and well. We understand that, but do you expect this timetable to resolve itself in an early course? When do you expect cabinet secretary to come to a firm view about whether or not this care would be provided? If not, I think that it is better for us to know that and to move on that basis. I am open, obviously, to know other members' things. That is really what I want to know from the cabinet secretary. I do not know necessarily whether I need the cabinet secretary to come here if she is prepared to tell me her writing. That is a fair point from Jackson. I think that probably a letter would be better. I think that every session is important. We should not just use it if it is only going to be a simple straightforward yes or no. To some extent, given where we are in the kind of electoral political calendar, it seems to me that the best thing we can do is try and get out a commitment on otherwise, and it may be that it is simply not affordable or whatever. However, I would certainly veer towards just a direct letter to say that we really need to know. If your position is that you do not know yet, when will you know, rather than an evidence session, that we may want them in on more important, not to denigrate this issue, but on something where we want them for a longer opportunity, as opposed to simply asking direct questions. On that view, I am more for the direct letter. I am not too sure if we could be any more direct on the previous letter that we have written to the cabinet secretary, because we have asked those very, very points that you have raised here. I think that everybody agrees that the progression in this petition has been really, really slow. The cabinet secretary, when she heard the last time advice that she had met with Cosler to discuss this, and that meeting has never really taken place to discuss this. I would suggest that we get the cabinet secretary back in, and then we can put those direct questions to her. If at the end of the day she says, for whatever reason, we are not going to take this fall, then I think that it is something that we need to know. The next petition is PE1505 by Jackie Watt on awareness of step B in pregnancy and infants. Members have a note by the clerk on its submissions. Can I invite contributions from members? This is an interesting petition, but I think that we could move to close it, given that the petitioner is going to be consulted and there is an undertaking to that effect by the Government on the drafting of the new booklet that will offer advice. I think that that is a helpful resolution of the issues concerned and one that allows us to bring the petition to a close. Members agree with Jackson? Okay, thank you. The next petition is PE1531 by Ashley Husman Powtown on removing charitable status from private schools. Again, members have a note by the clerk on submissions. Can I invite contributions from members? I have read carefully the responses that we have received and the issues raised particularly by Oscar. The difficult thing that I have is that when you take the term independent schools, Oscar has quite rightly said that independent schools include special needs schools that are established by charitable status, and Oscar makes reference to Donaldson's Royal Blind School and Capability Scotland schools. The difficult thing is that I know that the independent education sector does not like the term private education in Scotland. They prefer the term independent. It is really trying to get to the point where we can have a clear examination and distinction between what is being provided in terms of the special needs provision that is described by Oscar and what is being provided by the other sector within the independent schooling sector. Given Oscar's comments, I would be minded to write to the Scottish Government to ask the Scottish Government whether or not they would consider reviewing the 2005 charities legislation with the mind to review and to either define or make a better definition of what is charitable in terms of special needs and what is charitable in terms of, and I use the term private education in Scotland. We can get a clear steer from Oscar as to the definition of what is a charitable status education provision in Scotland. I see the difficulty when we talk about independent schools. There are schools out there that are delivering what I would term clearly charitable aims and objectives in providing special needs, and then we have other schools that have charitable status that get lumped in with that and get the special provisions that are afforded to charitable status skills. Thank you, convener. I continue to find the submissions of the petitioners that are unhelpful and not terribly well phrased or sympathetic. I am not also sure that the distinction that Mr Wilson seeks to identify is one that is not understood by the Government or by Oscar, but I have no particular objection to the question being put. I feel that we continue looking around the houses and all of this when the Scottish Government has said that it has no particular interest in or intention to review the legislation in hand or the terms of reference of it so that, as far as I can see, there is no political will to move the aims of the petitioner forward. I am happy for the question to be put that Mr Wilson has suggested, but with a view, ultimately, to us closing the petition since there seems no prospect of the Scottish Government acting on it. Members agree to Angus. There was, of course, some discussion earlier when the petition appeared before this committee that it was regarding extending charitable status to state schools, including schools that have additional support needs children attending. Perhaps could that suggestion be included in the letter to the Scottish Government? Would that be given that it has been discussed previously in this committee? We could add that to the letter that we are going to write. The next petition is PE1545 by Anne Maxwell on behalf of the Muir Maxwell Trust on residential care provision for severely learning disabled members of a note by the clerk and submissions. Can I invite contributions from members? Could I therefore agree that we should write to seek further information and views from the Scottish Government, the chief social work advisor and Professor Sally Ann Cooper? The next petition is PE1548 by Beth Morrison on national guidance on restraint and seclusion in schools. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. Can I invite contributions from members? There is an issue here that we should be approaching both the Government to ask it to respond to the concerns as well as raising it with the general teaching council as to what guidance criteria etc are available for severely disabled children. It is an issue whether it is happening with regard to restraint by the police, whether it is happening with regard to state by children. I think that we are in that kind of new world. I think that we have got to try and get it right and therefore I think getting some understanding of where we are at as well as perhaps looking towards improving the guidance and guidelines would be appropriate. Particularly on the submission from the EIS, I was rather concerned at some of the language used in the submission by the EIS and it is useful to get their submission but the submission was based on the annual general meeting in 2005 of the EIS where they took a policy decision. The reference to violent situations, I think, does not accurately reflect what the petitioner is actually trying to raise within the petition. The issue is about how restraint is used by teaching staff and other members of staff in the educational setting. They are right in that paragraph to talk about violent situations and to talk about risk assessments. It is something that the petitioner has raised that not every child who may be vulnerable in a school setting is having the risk assessments carried out and noted that they may require appropriate use of alternative methods, including restraint for that child. Clearly, the EIS recognises that there is an issue about self-harm for the child and that is hence the reason why it may result in restraint. There is an issue clearly that the petitioner has raised is about what type of restraint methods are being used and how that restraint is being carried out and who is providing the training for the staff. It is not just teaching staff that should be all staff within an educational setting that includes janitorial staff, cleaning staff as well as potentially catering staff should be aware of the needs of that child. I would be keen in relation to the petition to raise this further with the general teaching council that has been suggested, but also to flag it back up again in terms of the issues that are raised by the petitioner to the Scottish Government. Some of the issues that have been raised are about the costs of providing the training and that individuals within a school setting are trained and that normally is the head teacher, but given that the head teachers are not always in the school setting when the actions are required, it would be useful to get some clear indication from the Scottish Government as to what guidance is being given to local authorities to then advise head teachers and other staff within the school setting about the appropriate methods of restraint when required. However, as I said, I would reinforce that with the risk assessment having to be notified and carried out prior to that type of action being taken, but I think that it would be worthwhile just to flag it up to the Scottish Government again because clearly there are issues here about the methods of restraint that are being used. While EIS quite rightly identifies that teaching staff may face disciplinary action or legal action if they take inappropriate restraint methods, which may lead to harm with the child, clearly that is an issue of concern if we do not have a common approach throughout the education service as to what would be the appropriate methods of restraint when required. I notice that the petitioner has received very public support from, I think that she is now Daimester Rans and I have got that right, the protocol police within the Conservative Party, who there are many in Legion will correct me if I am wrong on that, the public support. However, I notice also that the petitioners are hugely encouraged by the quality and depth of the varied response that we have received. I think that, in writing further to the Scottish Government, some of that would benefit more generally in terms of the colour of the future response that we might receive from them and I would like to see that that goes to them as well. Members agreed that we will write to the General Teaching Council for Scotland and to the Scottish Government with the points that have been raised by John Wilson and Jackson Carlaw. The final petition today is PE1551 by Scott Paterson on mandatory reporting of child abuse. Members have a note by clerk and submissions. Can I invite some questions from members or contributions? I think that this is a deeply complex issue, which is why, although I think that we need a response from the Scottish Government for the 18th of March, we need to push them on that. I can understand why we need to make sure that they and indeed ourselves get it right. There are concerns about actions and then possible reactions, unintended consequences, but I think that we need to try and make some progress here because, as an underlying issue, we do need to chase the Government to try and get some further update. I think that there have been several thoughtful and informative responses. It has now been over two months since the committee wrote and we have yet to receive a reply from the Scottish Government. That is such an important matter and deserves a response. Could I add that, again, when the last petition draws the attention to the submissions that are already received and the suggestions for a full public consultation, further debate and further research, I invite the Scottish Government to comment on these in addition to our original request for views. Members agreed? Agenda item 4 is the annual report. The final item on the agenda today is consideration of committee's draft annual report for the parliamentary year, a length of May 2014 to the 10th of May 2013. All committee annual reports follow a standard format, as agreed by the convener's group. Members are invited to note the draft report, which paper 12 refers to, which will be published during the week 1 to 5 of June. A note from the draft annual report in front of us. We have no mention of what the remit of the committee is or the membership of the committee. Just being advised, that will be included. Thank you. Any other questions? I agree with that then. Thank you, colleagues. I now form a closing meeting.