 F nailed to the second meeting of 2015 on the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environmentרהdyr, before we move to the first item on the agenda. I would like to remind everyone present to switch off mobile phones that can interfere with broadcasting systems. Committee members may use tablets during the meeting because it provided meeting paper, digital formats, etc. First of all, I have an apology from Michael Russell, has to be away, ac ar ydu cymdeithasol yn y constiwnsau. Y gendig yna yn heinch ond wedi dweud y cyflogi copio. The committee is inviting our newest member of the committee- Sarah Boyack- to declare any relevant interest just now. Eformillin, I have nothing to declare. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the outgoing member of the committee- Kara Hilton for her contribution to our work. Felly, we will have to arrange to get another photograph with the current membership, which means that we now have a whole array of them on the wall. Welcome, Sarah, and your previous experience in this area will be additional strength to our deliberations. Thank you for that agenda item 2, decision on taking business in private. Second item is to consider whether it is necessary to consider the draft report in the Scottish Government's national marine plan to be taken in private at future meetings. Are we agreed to do so? We are agreed, thank you. Agenda item 3 is Scotland's national marine plan, and this allows us to ask questions of the Scottish Government via Cabinet Secretary Richard Lochhead, who is here with us today and accompanied by Linda Rosbara, the director of Marine Scotland and Anna Donald, the head of marine planning and strategy in the Scottish Government. Welcome, Cabinet Secretary and your officials. I wonder if you have any short opening remarks. We would be glad to have them just now. Good morning. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning to the committee. A special welcome to your new committee member, Sarah Boyack. I also thank you for the opportunity to give evidence on Scotland's first national marine plan. As you are aware of, marine planning is a new process, and I welcome your input to the scrutiny process that is now underway. Not only is it a new process, of course, I generally believe that marine planning is groundbreaking and has the potential to be world leading. We are effectively introducing a planning framework to our seas for the first time to help us to manage the competing interests with many valuable sectors using our waters to support literally hundreds of thousands of Scottish livelihoods, our economy, and, of course, we want to protect our natural environment and ensure that these sectors are carrying out their activities in a sustainable manner. We rely on our seas for food, energy and many other valuable factors, so that is really what this is all about, is protecting our seas and doing what is best for our economy at the same time. The plan before Parliament represents the culmination of a long and involved process, starting with the Rain Scotland Act 2010, through a pre-consultation draft plan in 2011, and extensive consultation in the draft plan in 2013. This process has been marked by intensive stakeholder involvement throughout, which has very much helped to shape the plan as it now stands. I am pleased with the evidence from stakeholders at this stage, which is supportive of the point that we have reached, although obviously some are still looking for some detailed amendments, and I am open minded as far as that is concerned. The plan has a number of purposes, but the key aspects are to set out policies for sustainable development, as required by the act, and to provide a framework for regional planning and decision making. In doing so, the plan must recognise the appropriate balance between emerging and existing commercial activity, social and recreational use and the protection of the marine environment. It must also recognise the broad range of activity covered in the different states of maturity and levels of existing regulation that are already in place. It is important to make the point that the plan does not seek to replace or contradict existing legislation and regulation, rather it provides a framework for that to operate in. As at the time of the legislation, when it was going through, the plan brings together a wide range of existing activity and crucially it allows for the interactions and interconnections between the different sectors to be recognised and policies developed to manage that. It was informed by a number of supporting assessments, sustainability appraisal and business regulator impact assessments, for instance. I also asked for an independent investigation into the plan to be carried out last summer, and the results of that have been taken fully on board and have very much strengthened the coverage of particular issues, particularly fishing, as I think Bertie Armstrong acknowledged before the committee just last week. Primarily, the plan has been shaped by consultation by the input of a very wide range of stakeholders and members of the public. It is this consultation process that has identified the identification of key areas on which we now focus and the level of detail that is required in relation to these particular policies. I also want to reiterate that the plan must be in conformity with the UK-wide marine policy statement and will inform future regional marine planning and decision making. The range of decisions to which it can apply is wide. All those decisions by public authority which impact the marine environment ranges from the Crown Estate leasing to planning decisions by local authorities. It is vital that we have this planning function in place in order to better manage human impact on the marine environment and to do so in a way that should be beyond the current silos. As I have said before, the marine environment is central to the delivery of many benefits and goods and services for our society. Therefore, it simply sets out a framework for the sustainable development overseas and a framework that seeks to protect those goods and services. As a result of the feedback, chapter 4 sets out in detail how the plan will deliver sustainable development, particularly in terms of the application of the general policies that apply across all development and use. We are also using the GIS portal, which is the geographical information system, and the national marine plan interactive that you will find on the website. That contains 450 layers of relevant data to marine planning. That is a key element of the evidence base and represents the future of marine planning where the information and evidence base is going to be web-based and fully accessible. Regional data can already be uploaded to that. It is not just national data, it is regional data, and Shetland and the Solway are among the regions that have already used that facility. More data is in the pipeline and will be added to that over time in line with local requirements around the country. I could mention lots of other different issues, but I hope that that sets in context how we have got to where we are today with the national marine plan, its aims and objectives and the fact that it is effectively establishing a single framework for what is already existing and out there at the moment, be that European legislation, domestic, UK or international. I hope that that puts in context for you. That is a great help, cabinet secretary. Thanks very much for that. We have in our stakeholder inquiries and discussions recognised that in the national document there is a kind of conflict between outlining highly detailed and prescriptive actions on certain issues, but much vaguer, less detailed actions on others. As I said last week, there is a danger of it becoming a little too specific on certain local activities in the national marine plan. I wonder what you see first of all the purpose of the national marine plan to be. Is it setting out a high-level overarching framework for marine planning, or is it to provide detailed and sometimes local prescriptive actions? I very much see the national marine plan as our first major attempt to providing a single framework for the future planning for our seas. Of course, our marine industries, our seas, are very important to Scotland for the reasons that I outline in open remarks. As we know from experience, especially since this part of it has been established in 1999, there are traditional sectors using our waters and there are many emerging sectors that rely on our seas as well, particularly clearly on renewables and recreational marine tourism and so on. Therefore, to provide a single framework to which our planners can refer, I think that we will be extremely valuable in the times ahead. Firstly, it should hopefully be a practical framework to be used by planners around the country. Clearly, there has been a demand from this committee, from Parliament and more importantly from the people of Scotland to have regional input and regional decision making as we take forward the planning for our seas. For our regional planners and our regional plans, which will be developed over time, to have a single national framework to refer to and set everything in context, I think is very valuable. Another important use of the plan will be to address whether there is potential conflicts. Clearly, the idea of laying out policies for the future of our marine sectors and our seas should hopefully give some pointers and policy context to local planners as to how they can address some of these conflicts. Clearly, in some parts of our waters we could have aquaculture, we could have renewables, we could have fisheries, we could have recreational activities, we could have marine tourism and for local planners to work out where aquaculture sites may be best located or to work with national policy renewables or the Crown State, which is going to be devolved into the Scottish Parliament, having a context to refer to as to what the country's national policies are and the guidance and the decisions there to work with, I think, will be extremely valuable for the future. There are a number of references in the marine plan to give helpful pointers as to how to address issues of conflict, because clearly there are conflicts potentially between different sectors and planners locally and indeed national policy makers will be able to refer to that in terms of having some ideas of how to address those conflicts. I don't think that any of us would have any problem with exactly what you've described, which is a general document of guidance for the whole marine planning process. However, I think that a number of us over the past few weeks have increased concerns that in some ways the plan is delving into micromanagement or regional management, if you like, in some areas. The example that I would bring to you is that there is a section on economic development and tourism, which specifies certain activities around different parts of the country. In my own part of the country, Galloway, it highlights as being a very strong area for recreational sea angling. True. However, somebody looking at that part of the plan, as drafted, would look at that and say, Galloway is no use for any other activity other than recreational sea angling, which is not true. That's a very simplistic example of where I think some of us feel that the marine plan has slightly lost its overall guidance role and become involved in regional management. I wonder if you've picked that up from the evidence that we've taken so far. Clearly, just to remend the committee, the process is that we have the plan laid before Parliament for scrutiny. Until the time comes when ministers decide to adopt the plan, we can amend it and change it in light of the committee's comments. You're clearly playing a very valuable role, and you'll feedback via your report to the Parliament your thoughts of what could be possibly changed. I'm open minded as I come to the committee on that. However, to answer your point directly, I would say that, as part of the consultation process, we were very much guided from feedback from different parts of the country, and that was fed into the national marine plan. I'm confident that, in terms of the example you give from your constituency in that part of Scotland, that will have been a reflection on what we've had fed back to us from local interests in south-west Scotland, i.e. recreational angling or other activities of very important local economy there, and should be reflected in the policy statement and used potentially as an example of the kind of policies we want to protect and pursue. That will have influenced why that's in the document, because of the feedback from your constituency and local authorities. In terms of what's covered and what's not covered within the plan, clearly we have national policies, and this is a national marine plan that will inform regional marine plans, and we have national policies. We have national policies to have an oil and gas industry, we have national policies to support agriculture and the development of agriculture, and so on, so these are existing policies, national policies, and it's very important they are in the national marine plan because they are national policies, and as a country, as a Government, as a Parliament, we support that, and we've taken decisions in the past to support that. Therefore, any regional planner or regional plan should reflect national policy. Absolutely, and I really have no argument without whatsoever, cabinet secretary, where I do have a concern, is where a document and a plan covering national policies quite rightly therefore highlights regional priorities, and I just can't work out how those two coexist. I know again to come to the co-existence between regional plans later on, so maybe that'll develop as well. I think that Linda Ross, director of Maine Scotland, just wants to add something here. I can just come in. We're starting from quite a low base in some areas in that because things have been very silo based in the past, often people aren't aware of other marine activities, so all the recreational activities are hugely important, they're economically important, they're important to people, but that's not always appreciated. So part of the purpose of the plan is to highlight these sectors and their importance. The particular part of the plan where we tried to identify what was particularly important in different parts of Scotland arose from consultation with recreational and marine tourism interests as to what they saw as the nationally important activities in different parts of Scotland, and that was then consulted upon. Obviously, those activities will take place all throughout Scotland, and you could just list that, but those operators were advising us that they were what they saw as nationally significant. I think that the challenge is always in a plan that is the first, and you're putting these things down for the first time, to try and get what's of national significance and get that in at the right level without turning it into something that's so bland that you really don't get into the detail at all. The plan also refers to quite an important study, which is under way at the moment, on these areas, and we will be putting a lot of data in consequence of that on national marine plan interactive, so this is not the end of the story, but we can certainly look at this sort of thing again as well, but just to try and give you an understanding of how this came to be, it's not to deny that these activities happen elsewhere, the national significance of the activity was what we were trying to address. That's an important point, because I think that what we found in terms of the process was as we consulted and the stakeholders, so it may be a national organisation representing angling or whatever, would highlight, as Linda has just said, a nationally important aspect of that in one part of the country. In other words, if you're having a national marine plan, you can't possibly miss out the importance of recreational angling or whatever in South West Scotland, because that's particularly important there, and nationally it's important. Therefore, having it in a national marine plan helps to guide the regional plans, because you can't possibly have a regional plan without recognising that this is nationally important, so that's really how it's guided and what to include and what not to include. It mentions not just the Imprison Galloway, but our Gael north-east coast and the Orkney Islands in that particular section on recreational sea angling, so it's pinpointing some people who've highlighted that, but it doesn't exclude it from being dealt with as a matter of interest in other areas, you're saying. We'll come into some more of the detail in a wee while. I guess McDonald's has a question now. Okay, thanks, convener. Good morning. It's clearly important that the effectiveness and performance of marine planning is measured regularly and effectively. Can you perhaps tell the committee how will the performance and success of marine planning be determined and reported on as it's not yet entirely clear how that will be done, given evidence that we've taken from representatives from SAMS? Okay, well clearly, as the axe stipulates, we have to promote sustainable development, have an ecosystem approach, etc., in terms of how we manage our seas, and the national marine plan will be reviewed after five years. And this is unfortunately not helpful, but under UK legislation, the reserved issues, and I expect from 12 to 200 miles aspects of the national marine plan, have to be reviewed after three years. So our intention is clearly to review as we have to under statute after three years those reserved issues and from 12 to 200 miles under the UK legislation, and then use that information from that review to feed into the wider review, the five-year review, that will happen thereafter, because that's the simplest way of doing it. So what you're asking will be primarily addressed through the review of the marine plan, but of course elsewhere in government we have to account for our European legislation and all the other legislation that's referred to within here. So the document, as I said before, is a single framework that brings together existing commitments and existing obligations, so there are no doubt other areas of government where, as a matter of course, we'll have to be reviewing the legislation that's referred to within here. Okay, so taking all that on board, what flexibility is there to adapt the plan at later stages? Total flexibility, as long as ministers make a statement to Parliament if they're amending, they have to explain why they're amending as part of the before we adopt it if we're adopting an amended version of the marine plan, and then thereafter there is clearly the reviews that will take place, but at the moment we have total flexibility of what to do with this plan, and that's why we await your feedback. That's supplementary, Graham Dey. Thank you. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. Just to clarify something, you said that you'd be required to review the 12 to 200-mile aspect of it after three years. I think you said something about that, and that would then feed into the process at the five-year stage. Does that mean that if you identify issues at the three-year point of review, you would have to wait till five years plus to do anything about it, or would you have the flexibility to act on those immediately? Well, I think we've got the flexibility to act on this. This is a national marine plan, but we've got the flexibility to act at any point in time. Ministers have that ability. Clearly, we'll take a common-sense approach. It's a national marine plan. It's a framework. Actual decisions that are taken by authorities have to refer to it and take it into account as a material interest, but we'll have flexibility clearly on a day-to-day basis to work with local authorities and regional partnerships once they're up and running. Okay, thank you. That feeds us well into the discussion about the local and the national marine plans, which Sarah Boyack is going to lead on just now. Thank you very much, convener. I'm quite interested in teasing out once we've got the national marine plan in place how the regional marine plans develop, how they fit into that process. There are a lot of amendments that are made in the modifications report, almost every chapter, I think. There's a new regional policy section that's been added. It's really to tease out the relationship between the regional marine plans and the national marine plans and just picking up that timing point, how to get the right balance between the national and the regional level. It's one of the things that comes up in evidence, divergent views on whether it should be the national plan translated into detail or whether there's scope for different views at the regional level. Just wondering how you see that panning out. It's a very good question and I will answer the question clearly because this is the first time we're doing this. We will have to adapt as time goes on. We reckon it's going to take quite a few years to have all the regional plans up and running in Scotland. As you know, there are some forerunners in that Shetland and the Clyde, for instance, are hopefully within the near future, going to be moving forward to getting up and running. They're not a formal yet but they're going to be the first two most likely up and running in Scotland and they're keen and want to go on with things and they want to be the pilots. So it'll be a bit of a learning process but in terms of how we expect it to pan out, is we have the national marine plan which anyone consenting any particular licence for any particular activity or drawing up a local plan, a regional plan that we'll have to refer to and the regional plans can't conflict with the national plan. So whereas the national plan is laying out national policies in the single framework, it's not determining how many aquaculture sites there are in Shetland or how many aquaculture sites there are in any part of Scotland, the regional plans will have the opportunity to put national policy into a regional context but it can't conflict with the national plan because quickly, as a country, we support aquaculture. Therefore, those who are seeking consent will clearly be able to challenge their local regional plans or local authorities or refusing consent if it was to conflict with the national plan. Can I ask a supplementary question? It's quite important to tease this out because we'll have the national framework and then we'll have the regional framework. There will be consultation at both levels so you've done the consultation in the national plan, we will have that at the regional level. I'm just thinking about how you actually arbitrate whether the national government will want to change its mind having seen representations at the regional level where there's been consultation. In the terrestrial planning system, there's a clear set of processes. Have you set out exactly how those processes will work in terms of people wanting to appeal local authorities being unhappy and wanting to challenge their decision? Have you set out the framework or can you set out the framework so that people can understand that because we've had representations from COSLA on the one side wanting lots of local variation and then on the other side, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, for example, worried that the regional plans will vary wildly from area to area. How does that conflict get arbitrated? Is that you as a minister or will there be a set of processes that people will understand? We will publish guidance on that and once the pilots are up and running, that's something that we're working with them on because quite clearly we have to iron out what will happen in certain circumstances except that. That's what we're going to do with the pilots once we get them up and running so that we can understand when they're putting the regional plans together and Marine Scotland will have a lead role in guiding and working with local authorities. I think that Anna wants to come in here just to explain what conversations have taken place. Just to clarify a little on that, as the cabinet secretary was pointing out, ministers obviously have a role in adopting the regional marine plan and could make a decision not to adopt for whatever reason, whether there is a conflict with the national marine plan or there may be other issues that come to the minister's attention. There's also a legal process set out in the Marine Scotland Act that relates to both national and regional marine plans under section 17 and 18 of the act whereby other parties could make legal representations about the content of a plan. There's a direct route for other parties to do that legally as well. I'll ask a small supplementary question about that. In terms of how pilots will run, are you going to do a selection of geographical pilots and are you going to intimate that to certain local authorities so that they know that they are the ones that are ahead of the game on this? There are 11 regions identified in Scotland that will be designated as marine regions. The two that are furthers ahead of the game are Clyde and Shetland. We expect, for instance, in the island authorities for the local authorities to be the lead partners in the marine partnerships that will put together the regional marine plans. No doubt it is likely to be local authorities in other areas, but those are areas in which we know that that is likely to be the case in island authorities. In Shetland, for instance, the partnerships, we expect to be the college and the local authority, so they will work together consulting with everyone else to draw up the regional plan in Shetland. The local authorities are aware of that. I said before that, because there are 11 regions, we anticipate that it will take some time for the other regions to get them running. Jim Hume follows on in this point. You mentioned the local authorities being the lead partners in Shetland and Clyde while ahead of the game, but there was concern that we have had from at least two of our witnesses. Last week, Lucy Greenhill from the Scottish Association of Marine Science in Bertie Armstrong said that, in a quote, we remain frightened about the potential effect of lack of expertise at regional levels. Lucy Greenhill, who I mentioned, said that people at regional level will struggle to replicate or improve on the quality of planning that is undertaken at national level. Two were concerned that there would be a lack of expertise in local authority. I wonder where you think that we are going to get the expertise to go on to the regional local authority boards who are going to be driving the plans forward. There will have to be a lot of efforts in the years ahead to build up the expertise. I am not denying that, just as we have had to do the same at national level with Marine Scotland over the last few years. However, I do not think that we should underestimate existing expertise with our coastal authorities because, quite clearly, our authorities are already dealing with many of the issues and build up some expertise with some of the individual sectors that are very relevant and most likely to be coming forward for consents and most likely to be featuring in the regional plans. Local authorities already have expertise dealing with aquaculture and, in some cases, the offshore sector. Clearly, there are inshore fisheries groups already up and running in Scotland. There is a variety of sectors where there is already activity. Therefore, there are expertise at local level and local authorities already involved in consents processes or local policy making. We already have coastal forums in Scotland. On the one hand, I am not saying that we do not have to build up more expertise. On the other hand, we are starting from a base where there is reasonable expertise in many local authorities with many of the issues that are most likely to be featuring in the regional plans. We will have to ensure that we are sharing that best practice and expertise across Scotland and building it up across all parts of Scotland in the years ahead. Will that be done centrally from the Scottish Government? Will it aid local authorities to set up those? Yes, we will be in Marine Scotland. We will be doing it already and we will be doing a lot of that in the coming years. As more and more authorities come forward to be first in the queue, clearly they are the ones that we will be dealing with the most. Okay, that is useful. Thanks, convener. If I could briefly deal with the national marine plan interactive, as we know, it is designed to assist with the development of national and regional marine planning. However, concerns have been raised and evidence has been given by the associated British ports that commercial anchorages do not appear to be mapped in the NMPI. There also seems to be no acknowledgement of navigational approaches to ports, which is also of concern to the ABP, as it is a lack of any mapping of sludge or spoil areas from dredging. They are obviously keen to ensure that navigational approaches are included in the NMPI and are protected. Can you give the committee an assurance that they will now be included in the NMPI, not just anchorages but other ports and PCs? Yes, I can give you an assurance. I will take that on board and I am open minded about including it. I do not see any objection to doing that. I will have a look at it. We have very much reflected what we have got to today by the consultation process so far, so I am not convinced that it became a big feature during the consultation process, but that does not detract from the fact that I am very happy to take on board their representations and, if we can include that, we will do that. I do not see any obstacle to doing that. A number of things are on our list to be added and those are among them. We are working on that. Sometimes there can be technical issues about who owns the data and writes, and sometimes there are issues about what sort of baseline it is on and compatibility. Sometimes there are issues to work through, but we are committed to continuing to add them. Those particular shipping-related issues are on our list. Do you have other examples of that? Other things are on my list. I hope that, in the next month, we will be putting on new fishing sensitivity data maps. That will be about showing which areas of the sea are most sensitive if they were to be lost from a fishing perspective. That is 26 layers covering 13 or 14 commercial species, so that is quite a substantial additional amount of data in relation to fishing, which should be really beneficial in terms of ensuring that that important area is protected. I mentioned tourism already. That is another area where we have projects in place designed to deliver future greater data for NMPI. It is very much an iterative process, and we are talking to the two front-runner marine special planning pilots about what their needs are. As the cabinet secretary mentioned, we already have some data that has been put up on NMPI by regions. We very much welcome that and want to work with the regions to increase that. I just wanted to add that we have a Scotland Seas Data and Assessment group, which is a partnership between our marine Scotland, SEPA, SNH, the Marine Alliance for Science and Technology Scotland and other partners who were involved in developing Scotland's marine atlas to oversee the on-going development of NMPI. Where we have requests or we become aware of spatial data that is available from other industries or different sources, the process that we go through is to take it to that group to look at quality assurance, some of the issues around licensing etc that Linda referred to, and to take a decision about how quickly and in what form we can get that on to NMPI. As the cabinet secretary and Linda have both made clear, we are very keen to keep developing that system as much as we can, so we are very open to other options in terms of further data that we can host on that. That is very helpful. I was just to ask, obviously, that it is an on-going process, but do you have a timescale for when all the stuff on your list will be loaded on to NMPI? Ministers can decide when to adopt the plan, so we await your feedback as a committee and there will be some representations from other stakeholders in Scotland. We will gather all that in, and I cannot give an exact timescale just now when we will adopt the plan, but we will do that as soon as it is practical. To be honest, I should also say that it is probably a never-ending task and that there is always new data coming along. That is good. That is interactive to the end. That is an active tool on the web. It is just to reiterate that there is over 450 layers of data that can be added. If you do not have the chance to go on to the websites, you can choose what to add. There are various buttons that you can click on, so you can add on to the aquaculture site or this or that. It is a way that should be very helpful to local authorities and the regional partnerships to build up their local regional maps. I will look at how the national green plan links with other legislation and duties. Thank you, convener. I think that the cabinet secretary referred to this briefly in his opening remarks. There was a concern raised by a number of stakeholders that the plan does not link enough perhaps to existing regulation and legislation. The marine conservation society particularly highlighted the fact that the plan does not link to the Scottish biodiversity strategy, which is obviously quite important in terms of this particular plan. Bertie Armstrong's submission makes a point that there are already a range of regulations that govern fishing and he failed to see where that fits in with some of the issues in the national marine plan. My question is to ask why there is so little reference to existing regulations and guidance. Do you feel that that links to such regulation and guidance would help stakeholders to better understand what is meant and how to work within the national marine plan? I am happy to consider the points. Clearly, I want to avoid adding another 50 pages to the national marine plan in terms of listening to all the various regulations, because this is a framework, it is about policy, it is about objectives and it is about giving guidance to how we can have various sectors working together in the same areas of seas. I will certainly give some thought to that. The plan, of course, is framed in the context of legislation, i.e. European legislation, and the various directives that we have adopted, the marine strategy directive, etc., and the various indicators for good environmental status. That is the context of the plans. You will see in the first couple of chapters, for instance, the context of sustainable development, the context of ecosystem approaches, much of that flows from our European obligations. The plan is framed in the context of our obligations, and we try to explain how we are delivering that in its chapters laid out in each sector. I can give an assurance for it at the moment, because I will take away the point about not enough reference to relevant regulations, but the caveat is clearly that I do not want to start listening to hundreds of regulations in the national marine plan. Just a couple of things that might be of assistance. One of the changes that we have made between the consultation draft and the draft that is before Parliament was to add a key references section to each of the sector chapters, which probably focuses more on relevant policy documents than on basic legislation. However, we could consider potentially listing the key aspects of legislation in those sections, which would be quite a light way of making sure that the context was stated, but, as the cabinet secretary was referring to, he does not run into pages of additional text, which I think would not be helpful. The other thing to note is that we have developed our website. We have a national marine plan online section, which we launched at the same time as it came to Parliament, which has a section for each chapter, which provides a lot of that context. I think that there are existing mechanisms that we can look at to see if there are other bits of context that we could include there. That is very helpful. I have no doubt that I will mention something about that in our report when it comes, but that is a very helpful explanation. I do not think so at the moment, but we want to talk about sea fishing as a follow-on. Yes, and obviously one of the principle, if not the principle, user of our marine environment is the sea fishing sector, hugely important to our national economy as well as to the marine environment. There are a number of issues that came out of the original submission by the Scottish Fisherman's Federation, which we distilled down a bit last week in the round table session. Indeed, Mr Armstrong has provided some further clarity of his existing concerns, though he was happy to say that a number of his concerns in the original constitution had now been addressed, which was good news. We were all delighted with that, I think that it would be fair to say. As indeed was he, one of the remaining concerns of the sector is that he feels or the SFF feels that the presumption in favour of development and of existing use that is made early in the plan is watered down and eroded somewhat later on in the plan, particularly under sea fisheries chapter 3 marine planning policies under fisheries 1, by the inclusion of two words that simply says wherever possible. He feels that that very much dilutes the firm commitment given to, if you like, a right to fish. I suppose that one could put it that way. I just wondered whether the cabinet secretary had any thoughts on that or whether he would think about it as he moves forward with this plan. I will reflect on it, but clearly to me that is a very balanced reference, and it shows a very clear presumption in favour of existing opportunities and activities being safeguarded. One general comment that I would like to make to the committee is clearly that you have taken very helpful evidence from various stakeholders, and if I was to address all the concerns of one particular stakeholder, I would immediately just cause other concerns to be raised by other stakeholders. The marine plan is trying to take a balanced approach and a sensible approach in line with national policy, which I believe has got a lot of cross-party support in many of those issues. However, I am never going to be able to satisfy all stakeholders in every single issue because, quite clearly, I have seen some commentary in the last 24 hours from one stakeholder saying that we should not be supporting fossil fuels. They are not going to be happy with the fact that an oil and gas section in the national marine plan necessarily. Clearly, as a Parliament, as a Government, as a country, we have a valuable oil and gas industry. It is going to play an important role in the transition from fossil fuels to renewables, but I am not going to satisfy those who do not believe in fossil fuels. Likewise, the fishing industry may have some remaining concerns that I cannot quite go all the way to addressing because, quite clearly, we have to be balanced in how we approach this. My comment would be that, at the moment, I am satisfied that the reference in the report is balanced. I will reflect everything that I hear from the committee today and in your report, but that is my initial response. If I may continue a little, convener, I absolutely accept the need to find a balance, but I think that you would also agree that it is the committee's duty to raise concerns that have been raised with it, particularly by a principal stakeholder in the marine environment, which is all that I am doing. I am not siding one way or the other with this, but I think that it is important to put some of these concerns. Two other concerns, if I may, that were raised with us by the SFF. One was the criticism, if you like, or concern that the marine plan would simply add another layer of regulation on what is already, I think that you would agree, a fairly heavily regulated industry. The second one was to do with safety. This particularly came up in terms of laying and renewing undersea cables, when I think that the SFF felt that not enough attention was being given to the safety aspect of that. I just wondered whether you could comment on those two concerns. We carried out the independent assessment of the plan, as I mentioned in the opening remarks last year. Subsequent to that, there were some extra safeguards referred to under the fishing section of the reports. I think that we have gone some way to address many of the concerns of the fishing industry. In terms of the cabling issue, in a couple of quick comments, I think that we have taken an approach towards safety, but also a risk-based approach. While the cabling companies and perhaps some of the power companies clearly would rather not bury, I think that we have made that quite clear, we have said that those issues have to be treated in a case-by-case basis. Of course, the recent events in relation to the Dura cable were a number of weeks and months taken to take on board the representation of the fishing industry. Clearly, we had a situation where the whole cable was to be replaced by the power company. It was not simply a repair as such. If it was just simply a repair to park the cable, then we would not have to necessarily go through the long-protected process for our consents. In that case, it was replacing the whole cable. Of course, we had representations from the Marine Coast Guard agents, I think that it was, and the industry itself, wanting more safety precautions to be taken in terms of burying parts of the cable. I think that we are trying to promote safety culture at sea in terms of cabling, and we are trying to treat it as a case-by-case basis and a risk-based approach as well, so I think that we have a good balance there. Thank you for that, but if I could just ask you to address the concern that you raised about even more regulation on an already heavily regulated sector? Sure. I do not believe that it adds lots of more regulation. It brings everything together in a single framework. There are policies, and if you do not like some of the policies, you are not going to be happy. You are perhaps wanting to not see those policies implemented fully at regional level and regional plans are put together or whatever. There might be issues with policies in some parts of the plan, in terms of what has been promoted to the plan, and in turn, those policies would be reflected in the regional plan, so I can understand that people might not be 100 per cent happy if they do not let the policies, but I do not think that it adds lots more regulation. Dave Thomson and then Claudia Beamish. Good morning, cabinet secretary and colleagues there. Welcome to the committee today. I would just like to reinforce what Alec Ferguson has said in relation to the sea fisheries. Moen constituency in the Highlands and Islands generally rely to a great extent on fishing small remote communities. As the cabinet secretary is very well aware, there have been serious problems and a serious reduction in effort over the past few decades. The industry needs all the help that it can get, basically. You mentioned, cabinet secretary, that you thought that the inclusion of the words wherever possible was balanced. I am not sure that I agree with you there. I think that the SFF has raised the point about presumption in favour of existing activity. Given that fishing has been there for, well, forever, more or less, and that the current environment is there, despite the fact that fishing is there, or maybe because of the fact that fishing is there, it is important to emphasise how important fishing is. I think that the plan could be beefed up a bit in relation to that. It is just to reinforce what Alec Ferguson said and ask if you have any further comment on that. My only comment would be that, while I am willing to listen to the report from the committee and if that is reflecting your report, clearly I will take it on board and consider it, but I do think that it does strike a good balance. I think that we have—the whole purpose of the marine plan is to recognise the various goods and services supplied by our waters. So fishing is extremely important and I battle hard for our fishing communities in Scotland on a regular basis, but I have to recognise that there are other uses and benefits delivered by our waters. Therefore, given cast iron written in blood guarantees to any particular sector, stepping over the mark, you have to say, look, we are doing our best to safeguard existing activities and wherever possible that will be done, but we are not going to write in blood and give cast iron guarantees that nothing will ever change because, quite clearly, we have got to do what is right for the national interest and that this plan is about balancing various competing interests in our waters. I just think that it strikes a good balance at the moment, so I do not want to give any indication that I am preparing to change that, but I will, of course, listen to the committee's report. Good morning, cabinet secretary. Could I tease out the issue of the existing activity a little bit further with you? In relation to sustainable development, underpinning or being very much part of the framework for the marine environment and activity going forward, I wonder if it might be worth the consideration of, instead of a presumption in favour of existing activity, possibly consideration of adding the word sustainable activity, because if one looks at the changing picture in terms of scientific evidence as it develops for the protection of the marine environment and the adaptive management that is going to be happening moving forward. I, like yourself, am extremely supportive of the fishing industry and of development within the marine environment, but I wonder if that word sustainable should be there. I would have concerns about the dangers of removing the phrase wherever possible, because I think that we have to acknowledge that there may be times when not what Bertie Armstrong in his evidence was arguing about the impossible, but just that some things may not be possible in terms of sustainable development, and that is a changing picture. I will reflect on your suggestion. Clearly, I would reiterate that the overall plan is written in the context of promoting sustainable development, and that is already there and very prominent in the plan and guides the plan. I will reflect on your suggestion, but again, we just have to balance various interests. We have the oil and gas industry, we have the fishing industry and we have to balance that for other interests. I reflect on that. I do understand that, cabinet secretary, in respect of that, but I am simply arguing that existing activities should be sustainable and that it is a changing picture in terms of the marine environment. I take that on board. We will look forward to that convoluted sentence, our paragraph, when we come to making a report to debate that behind closed doors, I suspect. We were talking about impediments to fishing in the case of cables. I think that Graham Day wants to ask some questions. I do indeed, cabinet secretary. Following the evidence session that we had last week at which there were concerns raised about what the plan required, both in terms of new cables and replacing existing cables, I reread the marine plan and struck me rereading it that there is room for common sense case by case management of the situation, which is what Scottish Renewables has suggested. However, SSEPDs are deeply concerned that the plan would require them to underground cables, and they are talking about significant cost implications. I wonder whether there is a need for further consultation and chapter 4, as they have called for, or whether, cabinet secretary, you can provide today to the committee or by amending the plan further clarity as to exactly what is being looked for? I will again listen to your views on this. I would simply say that our approach is to treat it as a case by case basis. I understand why power companies and cable companies would rather go for the cheapest option, but the cheapest option may not always be the safest option. Clearly, we have just been discussing the fishing industry, and the fishing industry may take a different approach to where cables should be, whether they should be above the seabed or below the seabed buried. I think that we are going down the right road here, having a risk-based approach, because there will be circumstances where it does not have to be buried, but there are circumstances where it will have to be buried. The representations from the power companies may be to go for the most cost-effective cheapest option. Clearly, we will always take that into account, because we recognise that it is a very expensive business. If we want power to go to Dura or any other community, we have to make sure that that happens. That is the interests of those communities, but we have to take on board representations about safety. I think that you have clarified that to some extent. The other point that arose was that the Dura case and the seemingly inordinate time it took in an emergency situation to come to a resolution. Is there an argument that in a situation like that, where they have to replace the cable as a matter of urgency, there could be a fast-track approach of some kind to ensure that the islands, in this case, would have been reconnected far quicker? As I said before, our approach is going to be that if there is a repair to be carried out, you will not have to go through the consens process. It so happens that the Dura case was a replacement of the cable and there were strong representations from various agencies and sectors in response to the plans by the power company. As you can imagine, the position that Marine Scotland was putting at that time did not stand all that. If I remember correctly, it was maybe four and a half months or thereabouts to get through the whole process, so we are actively wanting to make sure that that is not as long in the future. I recognise that, but there was a good reason why that was the case. Again, that was a replacement of a cable. If it was an emergency situation for a repair, there would be a much faster process. The experience of that case, from that, would you accept that there is a need if it is taking all those factors into account to hasten the process where it can be hastened, because that is a considerable period of time for those I-ones to have been offline. Yes. If we can expedite that process, we should do that. We have learned from that instance. I am only trying to give the background of why that happened. I think that most people would understand why it happened. Marine Scotland, we are putting in a very awkward position because of the strong representations that we get from different sectors. You can imagine that if we had not listened to one sector and there had been some kind of incidents, we would have clearly been in a difficult position. There are good reasons why that took that length of time, but we have to make sure that that does not happen in the future of at all possible, as you say. Good. I will go back to the issues of aquaculture at the moment. There was some concern in the marine plan, and here is one of the specifics, that Calum Duncan from the Marine Conservation Society said that we are concerned that the plan still contains a national target for aquaculture expansion. You talked about the whole plan being there to reflect an overarching approach, but is that appropriate in the national marine plan at this stage? Why is that target included? Well, the target reflects our policy on aquaculture, and therefore it made sense to have it within the plan. Clearly, I understand that some people in some organisations may not wish to see an expansion of aquaculture, and that is a perfectly legitimate case to be argued. Of course, it is not Government policy. Government policy believes that it can sustainably be expanded, but it has to be sustainable. Therefore, I think that there is a good reason to have that within the policy. We need to have food sources for the future, and, of course, the aquaculture sector plays an enormously valuable role in its highlands economy in particular, and, of course, wider economies in Scotland through the processing aspect of the salmon. We want to support the sustainable expansion of aquaculture in Scotland, and, therefore, it makes sense to have that reflected as a national policy in the plan. To balance things, of course, we have representations from the other side, which was from the aquaculture industry, saying that we should not be ruling out aquaculture in the east coast and parts of the north coast. Again, we try to strike that balance, and we are not going to make each sector totally happy to accept that. Aquaculture would rather see less constraints and expansion in some parts of the country. We have said that we are reflecting existing policy, and those who do not want any aquaculture would rather not see an expansion, perhaps, and we have said that we are not going there either, because we would like to see an expansion if it can be sustainably achieved in the future. I think that the answer is another point that I was going to make about the north and east coast just now, and I understand that. Is there an intention to ensure that there are plans for aquaculture to move further out to sea, including in your thinking for the guidance? That is certainly part of our thinking, and we have an aquaculture strategy, but we are now giving some thought as to whether that should be refreshed in the near future and all the factors that we have to be looked at. Appropriate assessment is something that is cropping up all the time in terms of the way that you are working out whether the marine plan is working. In the national marine plan, the inclusion of aquaculture expansion targets, then, as part of an appropriate assessment, is it something that is likely to be reviewed? I can only reiterate that it is important that national policies are reflected in the plan and referred to and mentioned. The regional plans will have to strike a balance with the national policies, so we are not dictating exactly where, of course, aquaculture sites should be. That is a local decision, but we think that it is only fair to reflect national policy. The appropriate assessments are of the plan overall. At the time of any particular application for an aquaculture site, it will have to go through its own environmental assessments, so that will happen at the time of the actual proposals for individual sites. The consistency in having that included, because you set out the targets for renewable energy and offshore. There may well be other national policies where you include the Government's policy with regard to its development. The consistency that we are looking for in terms of where it is possible to state those policies so that the marine plan has between each of its chapters something that reads over in terms of that consistency. Yes. It is simply the case that we cannot project where new sites will be to properly assess that, but as a policy, we are in favour of a sustainable expansion. You have explained that. Sarah Boyack? It is just a very brief supplementary on that. Just thinking about the potential conflict between trying to expand the industry and then the judgment at the local level. Presumably, there will be a policy hierarchy in a decision-making framework that can put issues like cumulative impact, which you have in onshore planning issues, and I am wondering if you are thinking about setting out guidelines so that local authorities in the industry can actually look at that in the context of the regional planning framework. My understanding is that that is the case. I will check that point, but clearly national policies are there to guide local decisions, and in every sphere of government, as you will know from your own experience, that is what happens. We are all signed up as a country that our parliament passes laws and decides policy and promotes policy, and that is reflected throughout the country in local decisions and national decisions. You cannot predict exactly what will happen at local level clearly, but you set down the policy that is a driver of local decisions. I think that I referred to this in my previous evidence in the December session, specifically in relation to aquaculture. Marine Scotland is currently working on locational guidance that will provide some more of the detail about where the potential for development is most likely to exist, so there will be a more detailed level of locational guidance available at the regional level. Is that fine for you, Sarah Boyack? I just wanted to tease out a little detail on the presumption against the expansion of fish farming on the north and eastern coasts, not so much in terms of salmon farming, but I just wonder what the logic is behind that presumption against development on all other species as well, given that there is presumably quite a lot of scope for expansion of agriculture into other species. Clearly, due to the salmon rivers and the fact that the topography and the nature of our inlets, etc., is different in the north and east of the country compared to the west, there has been a precautionary principle adopted in the past not to promote aquaculture in these areas of Scotland. I can accept the logic, cabinet secretary, on what we felt just to continue that. I can accept the logic for salmon farming, but a concern was raised with that it seems illogical to extend that presumption to other species of farmed fish. I think that our policy, to be fair, has been developed in the understanding that the species are most likely to be proposed for new agriculture in Scotland would be salmon farms. I guess that if there was an application for a different species, and it depends on the nature of the application, a local authority would have to decide its own view on national policy. The language is consistent with the equivalent policy in the national planning framework. One of the things that we have been trying to do throughout the entire plan-making progress is to align as far as we could the policies that are terrestrial and marine, because that has been a strong desire from stakeholders in response to consultation. To arbitrarily move and do something different in the marine plan from established policy that has already been through the process and has been agreed by this Parliament in the national planning framework, I think that might be a bit of a slippery slope. At the moment, as the cabinet secretary said, there has been no demand for other species. The presumption does not apply to closed on-land recirculation facilities, which might be an area of interest. It does not apply to shellfish either, so there are other opportunities there. Okay, thanks for that. Okay, that's fine. Move on to climate change issues now, Claudia Beamish. Thank you, convener. Could we look at the very important and moving information about climate change, cabinet secretary? On 7 January, Lucy Greenhill from SAMS expressed concern about the balance between climate change mitigation and adaptation in the plan, and she stated, as far as climate change is concerned, we have highlighted what seems to be a poor balance between, just a paraphrase, those two. She goes on to say that sometimes the plan is a bit disproportionate, particularly about the oil and gas sector, with regard to which there is a lot of emphasis on climate change adaptations, ensuring that your oil rig is not susceptible to rising sea levels, is used as the example. I go on to quote, but an unequal emphasis on how we manage and assess realities of the ultimate effects of oil and gas on climate change. I appreciate that this is simply one sector, but if you felt able to comment any further, although we have had some remarks on that earlier this morning, but also, cabinet secretary, on the relationship between other sectors and the changing picture of climate change information on the marine environment? Clearly, the marine plan and its general policies address the issues of climate change in going towards the low-carbon economy and the low-carbon activities, as well as adaptation measures. That goes right through the plan. Of course, there are chapters on carbon capture and storage, chapters on offshore renewables, et cetera. Some people, of course, can look at the plan and look for the answer to their key interests and to answer contradictions. Again, the plan has to strike a balance. Clearly, we have an oil and gas industry at the moment that is an existing activity, plays a valuable role in the Scottish economy and helps to meet our energy needs at the moment as we go through the transition in the coming decades from fossil fuels to renewables. Someone looking at the marine plan and looking for it to put oil and gas down the pegging order because of fossil fuel and just concentrate on clean energy or whatever, is clearly not going to find that to the degree that they would like because it is reflecting existing policy of the plan. Clearly, people out there with views on what those policies should be are not necessarily going to find that reflected on the plan because it is national policy. It is not going to answer everyone's pet interests because they will feel particularly strong about one issue. I can also reflect on the language if there are particular strong points that have been made by the individual that you mentioned. However, I can only explain the background of how we got to where we are just now. Clearly, our seas have enormous potential to deliver the solution to tackling climate change. I understand the point that you are making completely. I am not advocating any particular position. I am simply saying that as the science comes forward, for instance, if we take a different sector like for the relationship between the marine environment and fisheries and climate change and how migratory patterns in fish are moving or whatever, how that will inform the marine plan because we do not necessarily want to be waiting. In my view, five years for those issues to be changed, I am not advocating for any particular position. I am just saying that, obviously, taking into account climate change, which does, as you say, thread through the plan, but it is important to be aware of those changes that are going to happen. Yes, and I think that there is a fair point being made in that, as science comes forward, that should influence policy. I fully accept that. If science does come forward in relation to fisheries or other activities in our seas, the marine plan should be amended in due course to reflect that new science. I do accept that point. I am going on from there, I think, probably, about the natural heritage and adaptive management. Will you continue? In relation to enhancement of the natural heritage in the marine environment, stakeholders have expressed concern about the general planning principles, particularly as the Scottish Environment Link in Gen 9 on the natural heritage has raised some questions, particularly as to whether enhancement of the natural environment is sufficiently prominent. The third part of that point C, cabinet secretary, just for the official record, says to protect and where appropriate enhance the health of the marine area. I wonder if you could make a comment on whether you have used the word balance several times this morning, whether that balance is right. There may be developments that I see that do not enhance the natural heritage, but clearly those new activities would have to be sustainable and pass all the hurdles to get consent, but they might not enhance the natural heritage. Clearly we would not be supportive if it was detrimental to the natural heritage, but it might not enhance. Therefore, to be prescriptive, I think, would rule out the ability to treat each activity that may come forward in a case-by-case basis. I guess that that is our approach to that, and that is why it is not going as far perhaps as the environment link would like. It is because you start to rule things out and understand why they may wish every activity that is going to take place in their waters to enhance, but clearly there might be some that are not and might just be neutral, but they are important for various reasons. Would it be possible to clarify in what way guidance would be set out in order to assess whether development is enhancing the marine environment or not, so that those decisions can be made in an informed way? I guess that my answer to that would be that any activity will have to go through its own assessments in any case, and they would hopefully flag up issues that would have to be taken into account by the consenting authorities before granting or rejecting consent. As you said, general policy number nine in natural heritage reflects the policy direction. Moving to adaptive management, I want to touch on it briefly, cabinet secretary, because it has been discussed this morning already. I want to highlight that, in the written evidence Scottish Renewables seeks clarity about Gen 20 about adaptive management. It is concerned, and I just quote from their comment, that ad hoc arrangements to the plan in light of new data would create uncertainty, resulting in greater risks for project development and therefore would not be supported. Last week, Phil Thomas of SSPO stated, that getting the tone right and ensuring in terms of adaptive management, the platform is not continuously moving, is a serious consideration. I think perhaps I might say that rather than the platform, which would be a bit confusing perhaps in terms of what I want to ask, it's really the framework and how a lot of evidence has expressed concern, if I can correct myself, about adaptive management. That's not what I'm arguing against adaptive management or for it, but just that, as things develop, the various sectors will need to understand how they're developing and why. I wonder if you can comment on that. Clearly, we are saying that adaptive management means that you have to take on board new evidence as it becomes available. I'm not 100 per cent sure as to what the concern is that's being expressed. I'd have to reflect upon what you're saying and look at the representations that they've made on that. Perhaps clarify a little bit, and I hope I haven't got this wrong, but I am representing other people's views. The concern about making decisions on the basis of certain guidance and then new information coming forward, which is put in the overarching national marine plan, because it is evident ever conclusive scientifically, but in, for instance, aquaculture, that then the guidelines might have to be changed, and that's a complex issue for developers to consider. I hope I'm not misrepresenting. Well, on the one hand, of course, we'll have to take into account not wanting to create instability for activities that are being invested in and are costing money to set up. You don't want to change the goalposts, so you want stability. Clearly, if new evidence does become available, we have to at least consider it. It's difficult to give scenarios or predict exactly what might happen, but it depends on the new evidence that becomes available. Clearly, if new evidence became available, it was very serious and perhaps at a detrimental damaging effect for the environment. I think that it would be incumbent on the authorities to work with the developer to see what can be done to address that, and I expect that any responsible developer would want to work with the authorities to address that. Finally, as a supplementary on this section, you raised the issue in the overarching framework in your initial remarks about conflict, cabinet secretary. Have you considered the possibility of there being any mechanism at a national level? Would it only be at a regional level for conflict resolution or mediation? In a sector and between sectors, things could be quite challenging, I would suggest. Clearly, we would be content for Marine Scotland to give advice and intervene to help to resolve any conflicts that may arise in the future. The national plan also gives some guidance towards how potentially conflict can be resolved, mitigation factors or whatever might have to be adopted. It is addressed by the main plan, but of course, Marine Scotland will always stand by to help local authorities or other agencies or sectors to resolve conflict. Okay, thank you. Another subject is the one about the devolution of the Crown Estate. People have had a few remarks to make about this, because there isn't much mention of the Crown Estate in the marine plan. Clearly, its expertise is welcome. As we heard last week, much of its means of planning offshore is possibly amongst the best that we can lay our hands on. We have to incorporate that into the marine plan, but are there any implications from the Smith commission about the devolution of the Crown Estate that you feel that they need to comment on or even include in the marine plan as such? That is a good issue to raise. Clearly, I welcome the fact that, at long last, after many, many years of, I believe, cross-party support seeking the devolution of the Crown Estate or management of the Crown Estate to Scotland, we are finally, hopefully at some point soon, going to acquire responsibility. That will be great for our coastal communities and it will be much more democratic and transparent and will be able to be held to account in terms of how the Crown Estate is managed in Scotland. In terms of the marine plan, all I would say is that, clearly, the leases already happened, just that responsibility for the Crown Estate and management of the assets will pass to Scotland. It's not so much that the activity is not happening just now, it's just that responsibility for it and, as I said before, other responsibilities of accountability and further devolving it down to local authorities and all these other issues that are on the agenda, that will be decided in Scotland. Many of the activities that are addressed in the national marine plan arise from the right to use the seabed or leases from the Crown Estate. So, indirectly, the Crown Estate does feature throughout the whole of the marine plan because it's the leases and the seabed that allows these activities that we're discussing today to happen in many cases. As for clarity, it does marine plan out to the 200-mile and equivalent limit in our jurisdiction. Yes. Therefore, discussions about what local authorities might have as their responsibility are something that's still to be clarified, because the Secretary of State for Scotland was somewhat unclear about that at the Devolution Further Powers Committee when he said that he thought that their remit might run to about 12 miles, but there's some disagreement about that that's still to be sorted out. That's why I just thought it was worth having one more dancer there. Clearly, I'm not the UK Government or the Secretary of State, so we do need clarity on these issues from these people, but we want to have all Crown Estate responsibilities out to 200 miles devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and that's what we expect. It would be a huge disappointment if we were just to get bits and pieces. If we can have executive devolution of implementing a marine plan out to 200 miles, I think we should be at least getting the Crown Estate management responsibilities for all our waters. That's a very good link between the two in logic. Thank you, convener. It's just a quick supplementary. It may be more for the future than for now, but keeping on record, we need to look at the resource issue in terms of the marine planning that is done at the regional plan staged by local authorities in terms of their expertise and resource. If there's additional Crown Estate commission responsibilities coming to them, it's actually quite a significant lift-up in terms of responsibility and a real requirement for new expertise. It's maybe not something that's pinned down in the marine national plan, but it's something that's critical to its implementation. Yes, I'm in point noted. We're very conscious of that. Clearly, once we are absolutely clear as to what's happening, we'll have a lot of work to do with our local authorities to make sure that this is all smoothly implemented. That will be very interesting indeed, in a short sentence, with a very complex process. I'd like to thank Anna Donald, Linda Rosbrough and yourself, Cabinet Secretary, for very lucid evidence, which allows us to make a report that I think can be quite incisive and helpful at the same time. Thank you very much for your evidence today. We will move into private session, as previously agreed in a minute or two. The next meeting next week will be Wednesday 21 January, taking place in private, as agreed with consideration of the National Marine Plan and Community Empowerment Scotland Bill. I ask the public gallery to be cleared, as the public part of the meeting is closed, and we'll take a short break to allow this. Thank you very much.