 Fy hwylwch yn ei wneud i gael y 14 mewn cyffredinol yn 2018 o gyfraith cymdeithasol a'r Cymru Cyngorol. Can I ask everyone to ensure that their mobile phones are on silent? Apologies have been received from Jamie Greene, who hopes to join us in the meeting as soon as he can. The first agenda item is a decision on taking business in private. The committee has asked to consider item 5 in private, relating to the evidence heard to date ond the salmon farming in Scotland. Are members agreed? We are agreed. We are going to therefore move on to agenda item 2, which is about rail services in Scotland, and I would invite members round of the committee to declare any relevant interests that they have. Deputy convener. Yes, thank you, convener. I am the honorary vice-president of Friends of the Far North line. John. I convene the cross-party group on rail. Stuart. I am the honorary president of the Scottish Association of Public Transport, honorary vice-president of rail future UK. John. I am a member of the cross-party group on rail and a member of the R and T parliamentary group. Okay, thank you very much. This evidence session is part of a regular update from ScotRail Alliance to allow this committee to monitor rail issues. I would like to welcome from ScotRail Alliance Alex Hines, the managing director, Angus Tom, the chief operating officer and David Dixon, the infrastructure director. Alex, would you like to make a short opening statement before we go into questions? Of course. Thank you, convener, and good morning to the committee. I am pleased to be here once again to update you on progress with Scotland's railway since our last evidence session, which was in November. As you know, our mission at Scotland's railway is to deliver the best railway Scotland's ever had, and we're going to deliver that through the introduction of new trains, faster journeys, more seats and more services for the whole of the country. This year, we will deliver the largest ever capital investment, £900 million, in a single year on Scotland's railway. Delivering an investment programme on this scale whilst also delivering a safe, clean and reliable service every day to our customers at the same time is not without challenge. Thanks to the hard work of the 7,500 people who work across the ScotRail Alliance, we remain in top spot amongst the large operators in the UK for punctuality and service quality. However, as we know, it's not just the numbers that matter. The experience that our customers receive needs to reflect the high standards demanded of us and those that we set ourselves. It was for this reason that I commissioned an independent review of train service performance last year. This review has made 20 recommendations, all of which have been accepted by us, and we are in the process of implementing them. One of the recommendations, and the first to be implemented in full, is to change our policy on skip-stopping. Whilst an effective service recovery method, we recognise that it was unpopular with customers. We have already delivered a dramatic reduction in the number of skip stops—70 per cent reduction in the last four weeks—with a corresponding reduction in customer complaints. The ability of customers to get a seat, primarily in the peak but not exclusively, is another area of focus for us. Whilst we wait for Hitachi to finalise the testing of our brand-new fleet, we have hired in a fleet of electric trains to help to restore the capacity that we lost earlier in the year and provide more comfortable journeys for our customers as we enter into the busy summer period. Driver training started this week, and those trains will enter service in July. In the coming months, customers can look forward to the introduction of those brand-new Hitachi trains, iconic high-speed trains recreating a genuine in-city rail network for Scotland, modernised trains with free power and free wi-fi, all of which will transform the capacity of Scotland's railway to help to drive jobs and growth and quality of life across the country. Thank you. I would like to introduce this session just by asking you a question, Alex, if I may. ScotRail has missed 22 out of the 34 target errors in the first months of three months of 2018. It has been reported that that has resulted in £1.6 million worth of fines, nearly £400,000 from the previous quarter. Would you care to comment on those figures, please? Yes, of course. As part of the franchise agreement, we have signed up to the service quality incentive regime. It is the toughest regime anywhere across the UK, and it is because of that regime that we have the highest satisfaction of any of the large operators in the UK. However, it is fair to say that our performance against the standards that are set out in this regime could be better, and we are working really hard to improve our performance in this area. Some of it relates to resourcing, and we have action plans in place to make sure that we remedy some of those issues to improve our performance against those quality standards. It is worthwhile saying that any funds generated by the regime are reinvested in further improving the quality of rail services that we deliver. I am sure that you want to follow up on that. I raised this in the chamber yesterday, and I thank you very much for giving us the information that you have done. It strikes me that the information that you have given us is very positive, but it does not address the issues that the convener just raised about, those 22 out of 34 areas. I am just wondering whether we are looking at the same statistics, because depending on which statistic that you pick out to look at, would it not be fairer and easier if we all looked at the whole thing in the round and then we get an accurate picture rather than people saying that those are all the problems and that here is all the success? It strikes me that if you consider… I know that it is your job to be positive and to give us the positive information, but I am more interested in making sure that we get the accurate information. From my perspective, the people who should judge how well Scotland's railway is performing are its customers. That is why the national rail passenger survey is so important to us, and we get that data on a six-monthly basis. That places us in top spot among the large operators. We have just had a question around the squire regime. That is all the softer factors of our service. Is it clean? Is it working? Are we delivering great service? That was the recent statistics that we discussed. The recent information that we have put out relates to train service punctuality. That is measured by the public performance measure, which is, did the train run, did it call at all its schedule stops and did it arrive within four minutes 59? That is the PPM. In the last period, we delivered a result of 92 per cent, which was a good result. It was the highest since the September of last year. Most notably, we have changed our policy on service recovery to essentially stop the use of skip stopping. That makes the delivery of the punctuality target a bit harder, because when the railway is disrupted, it takes us longer to get it back to plan than it used to. However, it is better for those customers to be impacted. We have seen a massive reduction in the number of skip stops and a corresponding reduction in the level of customer complaints that we have received. Skip stopping is a real issue, and I am glad that that is being addressed. However, I would not want to say that it is certainly going back to the previous situation, because the issue of skip stopping has hit the political agenda, if I can put it that way, when you are addressing it. Can we be assured that it is going to stay the way that you have organised it? Yes, absolutely. The Donovan review, which our commission made 20 recommendations, is one of them. We have implemented it in full. All the other 19 are in flight. We are not going back. I would like to bring somebody in on skip stopping, Mike, but I am happy for you to ask another question. I will do Peter on skip stopping and then Colin, if he wants to ask a question. To do with the £1.6 million charges—some people call them fines, some people call them charges— is it accurate? If those improvements have happened, why is it such a high level of charge? One of the reasons why the penalties are that large is because the regime is really tough. The Scottish Government sets very high standards for the Scottish rail network. That is why we are at the top of the spot in the UK for punctuality and service quality. It is fair to say that our performance against the regime could be better, and it will be better. We have really strong recovery plans and we are taking steps to get the size of those penalties down. I am going to bring in Peter Chapman. He is going to ask a question not on what I said he was asking, but on what I knew he was going to ask. Peter, sorry. You have already mentioned that Alex Define, the £1.6 million fine, goes into the square fund. I really want to examine a wee bit more how you intend to use that fund, because it is very useful. In the recent past, the square fund was used, for instance, to give rebates and tickets, and we do not think that that was possibly the correct way to use that fund, but I think that was possibly directed from Scotland. However, I notice that we have a long list of stuff that the square fund looks at. Station, CCTV and security seems to be one issue that has fallen behind where we would like to be, litter and contaminations. Another one is below where we would like to be, train seats and train toilets also seem to be missing the target. I have a question. How would you plan to use that extra fund to make the passenger experience better than it is? Obviously, we build up the fund that we spend on improving the railway, and we agree how we are going to spend the money with Transport Scotland. To give you some recent examples of the initiatives that we have funded through that square fund, we have invested £300,000 in bodycams, for example, for our people to help to provide a safer and more secure environment for customers and staff. We are in the process of upgrading the waiting rooms on the stations that serve Edinburgh Glasgow as we prepare for the introduction of the new trains. We are looking at making sure that all the stations on the far north line, for example, are fitted with real-time customer information. Those are the sorts of things that we spend the money on. Clearly, we are always listening and engaging on what our customers are saying to us, and we have a pot of money there that we can spend to make things better over and above the investment that we are already making in the franchise. This year, we are spending £1 billion on capital investment in Scotland's railway. In this short period, we are spending about £2 billion enhancing on the railway, £1.5 billion on infrastructure and £1.5 billion on new trains. All of that is in addition to the money that we are spending anyway. I understand that. Having looked at the rules and regulations regarding the square fund, it is up to ScotRail to put their recommendations to the Scottish Government for how it should be used. After the committee gave a list of recommendations or proposals that it has made to the Government to use the square fund on in the past three months, what recommendations it will put to the Government. The committee can see where it is coming from. That is very much so. Good morning to the panel. Is it not the reality that the performance figures that are shown by Squire show a fallen performance? The figures that we just heard about show that you met 12 of the targets for quarter four in 2017-18. That compares to 15 for the same quarter last year in 2016-17, and it compares to 19 in the same quarter for 2015-16. The reality is that performance has actually fallen, not improving. In your opening comments, you said that the passengers behind the figures are paying increasingly higher fares for a service that is in decline. Do you think that you owe those passengers an apology for that fallen performance? Squire is not measured by customers. Squire is a KPI regime, a key performance indicator regime, which is measured by Transport Scotland's Squire inspectors. The reality is that it is the passengers that have got the chains that are not clean enough. The passengers are the ones that have the stations that are not up to the high standard based on the Squire performance. It is passengers that ultimately suffer. That is why customer perception is so important. What rail passengers in Scotland say is that, according to the National Rail Passengers Survey, we have 85 per cent satisfaction. It was up on the air before. We are in top spot of the large operators. Can we do better? Will we do better? Absolutely. You do not think that the Squire figures are important then. One of the most important parts of the report is that the figures in relation to CCTV cameras in particular in the latest quarter figures showed a performance of 77.8 compared to a target of 95. That is the worst performance since Abelio took over the franchise. It is 10 per cent lower than the figure for this time last year. We have seen a falling performance when it comes to CCTV and security in stations in the last three quarters. Do you think that that is linked to staffing levels in CCTV and stations? I do not know. The changes that we are making to our customer information and security centres are all designed to improve customer information. Passing information during delays is a big area of focus for us to improve the speed, the accuracy and the timeliness. Those two things are not related to one another. The question was specifically around your performance in relation to CCTV and security in stations. The figure in Squire shows that it was 77.8 per cent compared to a target of 95. That is the worst figure since the franchise was given to Abelio. It is 10 per cent lower than this time last year and we have seen a fall in the square figures for CCTV and stations in security in the last three quarters. That in no way is related to the cuts in staffing within CCTV, do not you think? Correct, but it is not to say that we need to improve our performance in this area. I am sorry, I have got people queuing up. I think that I am going to have to bring Stuart in and then I would like to go to Richard and then we will move on to the next question. It is just a quickie on train refreshment as I spend 12 hours a week on ScotRail. I take a particular interest in the subject and I see that it is at 91.5 with a target in 95. I just wanted to specifically ask if there are any steps being taken to improve that, and in particular whether the introduction of the HSTs will change the food offering? The food and drink offer on board is a really important part of both the customer experience and the contract. We are working to make sure that we are at full complement of staff there. I am expecting an improvement in that area. Obviously, the introduction of the high-speed trains enables us to offer an improved food and drink offer that we currently cannot deliver from a trolley-based service. We have some really exciting plans for the intercity food offer enabled by the fact that we have a small kitchen on board so that we can offer hot food for the first time. If it is a brief question. Squire is independent inspectors. Do you agree or would you agree that some of those things, I am astounded that they are on station posters, car parts and taxi ranks, train posters. Why are they on or do you agree that some of these should not be on you? It is up to Transport Scotland to decide what it is that they want us to deliver, and that is what they have done. What are they delivering on a car part and a taxi rank? White lining, the fact that there is white lining in place, is there signage in place, is it clean, is it pot hole free? All those, every single aspect of the service gets measured to a huge degree. Actually, that is a good thing. That is what is underpinning, the quality that is delivered by Scotland's railway. I am going to leave that there and move on to the next set of questions that come from John Mason. Thanks very much, convener. Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement Project, I think probably really just two questions. There is the infrastructure and there is the rolling stock. So, if we take infrastructure first, am I right in saying that everything is complete now except for Glasgow Queen Street station? Can you tell us how we are getting on with Glasgow Queen Street station? Especially, I had a constituent came to me that, and then it was in the newspapers that a building that was partly built might then be demolished for something else, and I wonder if you could comment on that. Yes, of course. It is true to say that, since December, the core electrification of the Edinburgh to Glasgow route has been completed and customers have been benefiting from faster greener longer trains on that route. Our services are not fully electric yet. That is why we need to finalise the testing of the Hitachi fleet so that we can convert that route to full electric operation. That will enable us to cut the journey time even further and increase the number of seats. On Queen Street redevelopment, we are now on site. It is literally a building site, and we are keeping the station open at the same time. We have nibbled away the 1970s building on the front of George Square to reveal the grade-listed shed. The construction that your constituent asks about relates to a retail development in North Hanover Street site, which is just to the east of the station. Scottish Government has recently taken a decision to go for a much bolder and more ambitious scheme for that site. As a result, a small amount of work that has been done on that site will have to be changed. The completion for Queen Street? 2020. That is fine. On to the rolling stock. Maybe you can give us an update where we are with that. We understand that there have been problems with windows or windscreens or whatever, so I will be interested to hear how that is going. I think that the commitment at the moment is eight car trains and a 42-minute journey, or at least some of them at 42 minutes by the end of this year, so are we still on course for that? Yes. There are two outstanding issues with the Hitachi trains. One is the windscreen, and the other is the train's software. During the testing programme, we uncovered an issue with the windscreen that shows some slight double imaging at night, which is clearly a safety issue. Hitachi has been working with its windscreen suppliers on alternative design to the windscreen that is being fitted to the train this week. We will then bring the train to Scotland and retest it. Initial indications are that that windscreen is much better than its predecessor, and that will enable us to do a campaign replacement of the windscreens. To press you on that point, Hitachi has been making trains for a long time. This is not a new thing. Why has this become a problem? It is a new train design. This is not an off-the-shelf train. This has been designed for us and for Scotland. There are some particular design characteristics of the train, which means that it is ended up with a curved windscreen. For example, these trains have what is called end gangways, where customers and staff can walk through the entire length of the train when they are coupled together with each other. This is the point of having a testing regime. Every single aspect of the train is tested. We test the design of the train, but we also test each train individually to make sure that it is fit for purpose before we put it into traffic for customers. Software is the other issue. We are reducing the number of outstanding software issues so that the software is reliable enough for us to enter into passenger service. We are expecting to introduce the Hitachi trains in the coming months. On the journey time, we would like to deliver 42 minutes journeys on the brand new electric trains for this December. It will not be every service at 42 minutes for this December. That comes the following year, but that is our aspiration. Clearly, that is dependent upon having the rolling stock from Hitachi to deliver. Just for clarification, 42 minutes includes how many stops? Four. Those trains are doing that under test already. It is my aspiration that we do some line speed enhancement on that route to cut the journey time even further, because those brand new electric trains reach 100mph in half the time of a diesel train. The drivers are having to throttle back, and therefore the train performance is outstripping that of the infrastructure. I have said, well, let's be bold and let's be ambitious and see what can be done to exploit the full performance of the train because it's impressive. Thank you, convener. As part of the re-equipping the rail system, you've released quite a lot of 170s, and therefore there are a number of short-formed units. Roughly how many of those are there? We've lost six trains from the fleet in recent months, which is why we've hired in this fleet of 10 electric trains, which will go into service in July. Essentially, we've got four critical services each day, which used to be six-car trains, which are now three-car trains, which is causing crowding for our customers, which is something that we need to fix quickly. It's a morning peak into Edinburgh, it's a morning peak into Glasgow, and it's the same in the evening peak. There are four critical services that we must fix as soon as we can. Just to clarify, I take it the six. 170s have gone out. We've taken 36 carriages out, in other words, the sixth coach. How many does the 3.6.5 bring in? Two 1.58s have left the fleet. There are two cars. Four 1.70s have left the fleet. There are three carriages. We've actually been doing some work with our heavy maintenance programme to squeeze availability of the fleet to actually reduce the impact of that by net two. The 10 that we're bringing into traffic on short-term hire are electric trains, and they are four-car trains. My arithmetic therefore says that, leaving aside the better exploitation of what you've got by changing maintenance, you've taken 16 carriages out and you're bringing 40 in. Yes. Those short-term hours will more than replace the capacity that we lost earlier this year. Right, that's fine. Maybe the other thing, in an attempt to redistribute some of the traffic, you've introduced lower fares on Edinburgh Glasgow via Airdrie. How successful has that been? It's been very successful because customers have been benefiting from that lower fare. We implemented that in March. The reason why we did that was to encourage customers that might have a choice of travelling between Edinburgh and Glasgow to take the via Airdrie Bathgate route so that we can decongest the main Edinburgh Glasgow route via Falkirk High. It's costing us a lot of money, but it was the right thing to do for customers. Okay. Thank you, Stuart. Peter, on the next slide. Yes. Once you get your new Hadashi trains in place and there's going to be various movements of trains, the old Intercity 125s are going to get an upgrade, I believe, and they are going to go back into service from May 2018. In Aberdeen, Edinburgh Line, is that correct? How is that coming along? We're in May now, so is it going to happen on time? Can you tell us a wee bit about how the refurbishment of these trains are going forward? Yes, sure. The contractual commitment for the first high-speed train is due and we're working hard with the heavy overhauler who's refurbishing the fleet at Doncaster to bring that train up to Scotland as soon as we can, so we can start operating some preview services for customers. I think it's fair to say that that project has been a challenge and we're working very closely with them to get that train here as soon as we can. These trains are going to be thoroughly refurbished The trains have come off Great Western Railway, we are going to improve the quality of the seating, the seat pitch, we're going to line seats up with windows, we're going to introduce more tables, I've talked about the hot food offer, to transform the quality and the capacity of those longer distance routes. Currently, three and a half hour journeys on the three car diesel train will be transformed to a four or a five car intercity train with the engines at each end, so you get intercity levels of quality. I think it's going to transform the customer experience on those longer distance routes. We're hoping to introduce the first service between Aberdeen and Edinburgh very shortly. It's unlikely to be this month that we've had some short delays with the heavy overhauler but we're working as fast as we can to remedy that. Angus, I don't know whether you want to add to the HST programme. Yes, as Alex touched on, it is a full refurbishment of the internal and external of the intercity 125 or HST trains, so things like all-access toilets have been fitted to them. A big thing is they're not having slammed door up here as they are down in First Great Western. We're fitting new electrically operated doors to the trains, which makes it better for passenger use and better for dispatch time. It is quite a comprehensive overhaul that trains are getting when they come up here. The Mark III coach is a nice open space, open field coach, with a better environment for our customers between our major cities in Scotland. You speak about the internal changes when that will be fine, but what about mechanically? Those trains have been in the go a long time. Do you get a mechanical overhaul at the same time as that part of the process? Part of it is to replace some of the components. Many of them are going through major heavy maintenance programmes and overhaul, as well as the internals. The engines themselves are less than 10 years old, so they're not 40-year-old engines. They were re-engined a few years ago, and it's a fairly reliable replacement engine that's on board them. There's more to it than just the refresh of the internals. What I would say is that we've been running four driver training trains across Scotland for several months now, without problems or incident. Those are trains that have not necessarily had the fuel refurbishment yet, but they're still operating in Scotland training our drivers and our train crew up. Just for clarity, if I may ask you, you said that it's unlikely to be May. It is May. Is it unlikely to be June or more likely to be July? Or is it likely to be June or July? Or is it likely to be this summer? Do you have a date? I'm not in a position to give a firm date because we're still working with Waptec, the company doing the overhaul rule, to make sure that we've got a robust plan to deliver the first refurbished train to Scotland. Originally, we wanted to go above and beyond the contractual date of June to deliver something for the timetable change in May. Sadly, that's now looking unlikely, but we're working with Waptec to bring that first refurbished train as soon as we can. I can't make a firm commitment because... You will have had, with the greatest respect, an indication of when that's going to be. I'm trying to get an indication from you when you think that will be. I think it's helpful for the passengers that use that service to get a clue when that's going to be. I would like you to try and answer that question with a bit more certainty than you've already given. Well, it's my aspiration that we put the first train into service in July, but that is continuing upon the heavy overhaul producing me a train that is fully refurbished. So, final part, aspiration July, likely August? I'll move on to the next question, which is Mr Lyle. Well, I always used to say that it will be ready when it's ready. Rolling programme of electrification, I declare that I stay right beside the Holytown line, the Holytown junction. The electrification from Holytown to Midgolda junction, when do you think that will be finished? Can you give us a progress update on the Shortsline electrification project, including are all the bridges now been raised? So, the deadline for that project is March of next year, and that project is on time and on budget. We learn a lot of lessons with the electrification of Edinburgh Glasgow electrification, which we've applied to the electrification of the Shortsline, which is what we call your line, and also the electrification of Stirling, Dunblane and Alloa. The first section of Stirling, Dunblane and Alloa electrification is actually being switched on as we speak, so a really good news story there. In terms of all the bridges being raised, I'm not aware of any outstanding issues, but David, I don't know whether you've got any more details. I'm not aware either, but we can easily, I can clarify that. So they've all went well. The enhancement programme from an infrastructure perspective in Scotland is going very well indeed, so if you look at Aberdeen to Inverness, the rolling programme of electrification, the Highland mainline improvements, the redevelopment of Queen Street station, all those projects are due to deliver their deadlines within the overall funding envelope. Okay, and is there any hold back with Network Rail? Do they have working with you quite well in electrification? Well, together with the Alliance, we are Network Rail, with ScotRail and Network Rail working together, and I think the closeness of that relationship running track and train together is one reason why Scotland's railway outperforms south of the border. I agree. John Finnie, the next question is with you. Thanks very much, convener. Good morning, panel. Mr Hens. I'd like to ask you a question about the Highland mainline, which will contain a reference to timetabling. If you don't get too deeply, I would like to then ask you a supplementary specifically on the timetabling. The question is around the ORR Network Rail's monitor's suggestion that there's a risk of the delivery of the Highland line improvements due to the lengthy timetabling process. You built to confirm that the predicted reductions in journey time, which was, I needn't remind you, but for the record, hourly services, the central well and reduction in 10 minutes, and I think a challenging, more efficient use of freight. Is that going to be delivered? So the Highland mainline infrastructure will be delivered, which will improve the service on the Highland mainline. We're not able to absolutely confirm exactly the journey time and the stopping pattern, the frequency of the service on that line of route, because we need to check the way the trains are passed, particularly with freight, for example, which is why we're currently doing a consultation of what timetable could be possible on that line of route. So the infrastructure is on time and on budget and we're doing a consultation about what train service, the fine detail of it, we can operate once that's complete. Okay, thank you for that answer. I was in touch and I'm very grateful to your staff for a response of an issue that's of concern to Kate and indeed to other colleagues and myself about the implications and if I could put at the tensions between the aspiration to reduce journey times and the expectations of communities that they all benefit from that, but, of course, those journey times may be brought about by a reduced number of stops rather than how is that all filtered together? I'm aware that there is on-going consultation and that is to be welcomed, but if you follow me, the tension that must be there, how can I deliver it? If I give you the very specific in the reply then and I'll not go into the detail of it, an average of four people per day would board this particular train and each day we would estimate that 350 to 400 people would be adversely affected later on. Is it always going to be a numbers game because the fear that we would have in the highlands is that the larger numbers affected on the overall impact on the service of your phone? We need to strike the right balance between frequency and journey time, which is not always easy, particularly on infrastructure, which is constrained with single track sections, which is one reason why we're investing a lot of money on Scotland's railway to take these single track sections out because they really compromise your ability to provide a great train service. What we've seen over the years is the timetable evolve through time and what we're doing with the consultation is saying, well, the introduction of these high-speed trains gives us an opportunity to review what we might do to exploit the capability of these trains. What I would say is because the train fleet is getting that much bigger, we're going from 800 carriages in the fleet to 1,000 carriages in the fleet over the course of the next 18 months, what that will enable us to do is operate the high-speed services between the highlands and the central belt with faster journey times today, but because we have more carriages, we can also operate more semi-fast services as well. That is a change. We need to get it right, and that's why this consultation is so important. Any improvements are welcome, but there's been a reduction in what the initial proposal was, just to see additional double-tracking at Avymor and Pitlochry. Does that, in any way, impact on that overall figure of wanting to reduce the reduction time and, indeed, the frequency of trains, compared to the original proposal, which was more doubling, as I understood? No, I don't believe so. Time tables are very complicated things, and it's not just ScotRail services that we have to accommodate. It's other operators, train services and freight. Inevitably, the timetable process means that compromises have to be made, and that's why we're doing this consultation. If your constituents have any concerns in this regard, I would really encourage them to take part in that and make their voice heard. What we'll do is come up with the best proposal that balances the competing priorities. A couple of final things on the main line, please. Is a challenge there increasing freight, as I understood, pretty much at capacity as it is? Can that be achieved? Are you in consultation with the freight companies? Obviously, we want Scotland's railway to see more freight services. Freight in Scotland is actually down by 80 per cent because we closed Long Annett coal-fired fire station. That means that we've got some capacity on the network that we can use for other markets. We're working with business and Scottish Government to develop new markets for rail freight, and one specific opportunity on that line is working with Highland Spring to try and get their produce on rail. That looks like a really good prospect, which is great for freight on rail in Scotland, but it does add to that capacity issue. I'll roll two together. Can you give a brief update on the Inverness Aberdeen project, please, if there are similar challenges there? The consultation is currently live. I don't have an end date, but I can confirm that later with the committee. In terms of Aberdeen to Inverness project, that is currently on time and on budget, £330 million, both to improve the train service between Aberdeen and Inverness, but also to improve the train service into Aberdeen and into Inverness, so really great commuter services for people to access employment there. We've completed the west end works, the track, the signalling, the new station at Forrest, for example. We now move to the east end of the route and we've got a 14-week closure of the line between DICE and Aberdeen to enable us to deliver this work as quickly as we can. We actually did a consultation with the communities on that line and said, would you like us to deliver this project over three years in the evenings at weekends with a number of shorter closures, or would you prefer for us to have two bigger bank engineering closures and they very clearly chose the latter? That work is being done in this 14-week blockade, which has now just started. John, if you want to go back, it was quite a full answer on that. I'm happy to let you back in. On that particular, in the closures, the issue of perhaps people getting use in 14 weeks to maybe going back in their car or finding alternatives, how will you promote reuse of the train service after that, because the potential is a loss? I'll beat you, you're going to bring in an enhanced service, I appreciate. Is that part of the programme? Yes, it will be. We're doing more marketing than we've ever done before. We're doing better marketing, re-stimulating demand for rail travel is a key part of it. We've learned a lot of lessons about how to do that following the Queen Street closure, and we'll be applying those in this case. If you want to come in briefly, then I'd like to meet Kate. I just want to congratulate you, because my huntly to Llynlothgo Johnnie, even with a bus in it, has only lengthened by two minutes. I think that's a master class in how to do the scheduling. Thank you. I think I'll leave that one there. Kate. I hope that this will be another master class. We're going to find a bus to say. Hold on, hold on. Sorry, sorry. Can we hear Kate's question? Moving over to the west coast further, to John Finnie's questions, I'd like to ask a question on the West Highland line. Now, I understand that you are members of the new West Highland line review group, which will be looking at timetabling and other improvements to infrastructure and getting some more investment into the line. Obviously, great opportunity to get cars off the A82 and to get freight off the A82 and huge potential with tourists who want to see iconic sites along that route. What are your plans when it comes to improvements to timetables and infrastructure on the line? The first thing that we're going to do is improve the quality of the rolling stock on that line. The fleet that operates on that line currently, they're called the Class 156, they're a diesel train, and we're thoroughly refurbishing that fleet and will have completed that investment programme by the end of next year. New lighting, new seating, free wi-fi, power, et cetera, to create a thoroughly comfortable and modern environment. We're actually currently doing some work to see what infrastructure changes we would need to make on the West Highland line to operate a different type of rolling stock on that line called the Class 158, and the added benefit of that is that it has air conditioning. The 158 train, we've also refurbished to improve the scenic nature of it by lining seats up with the windows, we're doing that on lots of parts of the line, and indeed we're doing record amounts of vegetation management to remove trees from the immediate line side. It's good for safety, it's good for performance, but it's also good for tourism as well. When I was up at Lochaber recently with the Transport Forum, they were very much saying to me what they wanted to see was additional train services. Other stakeholders have expressed a wish to me to improve journey time. Obviously, the journey times by road are shorter than by train. I really welcome the establishment of this review group because it will enable us to thrash through what the priorities for that line are and build a plan to do it. If you look at the success that we're having on the far north line, that shows you what can be done when people have a really strong vision of the potential of the railway. We invest to make it better, and we're looking forward to doing the same on the west highland line. In terms of the rolling stock improvements to the rolling stock, what are the timetable skills for that? All the existing rolling stock that operates on that line will all be refurbished by the end of next year, so every service will be operated with a refurbished 156, and in parallel we're doing some work to see what changes would need to be made to the infrastructure to enable the operation of this higher-quality train. We have to make sure that the infrastructure and the train are compatible with each other, given that different trains are different sizes. The trains will hopefully be operational by the end of 2019 with infrastructure prepared for it. The class 156 fleet, which currently operate on that line, is being refurbished as we speak, so every month you use the service you'll see more and more refurbished trains operating on that route, and by the end of next year every single one will be refurbished. On the infrastructure, that's what this review group is about, to see what are the priorities, is it journey time, is it frequency, is it both, what improvements could we deliver given some infrastructure, and then clearly we would need to work with Scottish Government to make a business case for that investment. Thank you. Okay, thanks Kate. Just before I get Jamie in and then come to Gal Ross if I may, you've mentioned on several occasions free wi-fi. I think that wi-fi offer is actually to be commended, but there's still large areas where when you're on the train as I am Tuesday and Thursday nights, I miss the wi-fi because it's not across all of your network. Can you just confirm that you are looking to make sure that you've got better coverage? I'm not criticising what you've got at the moment, I would just like to see it better. So there's three things in the pipeline which will make wi-fi on ScotRail better. First of all, as we renew the fleet and refurbish it, they all get fitted with free wi-fi. Secondly, that free wi-fi only works where there's a three or four G signal available, and of course as mobile connectivity improves through the mobile operators, therefore the onboard experience will also get better. We're also doing a trial on our network with Cisco to see what we might do to fit one of the fastest wi-fis of any train anywhere in the world and that trial is happening as we speak. We're pretty excited by this prospect and if it works, we'll be coming forward with some proposals to the Scottish Government about what we could do across the network. Jamie, you wanted to come in on other points relating to the experience. Thank you, convener. Good morning, panel, and my apologies for missing the opening part of the session. I have two very distinct questions. One is around what the panel's view is on how ScotRail could play a bigger part in promoting modal shift in Scotland. How do we get more people off the road on to trains by improving things like, for example, bicycle parking at stations, car parking at stations, the capacity of bicycles on board, train carriages, et cetera? Any user updates or views that you have on that, I'd find quite helpful. Okay, thank you. Well, firstly, our current marketing campaign specifically targets road users and highlighting the benefits of travelling by train, the fact that you can be productive and use that time as you wish. We've actually got some advertising hoardings on the side of lorries going round congested Scottish cities as we speak to make that point whilst car drivers are sat in traffic jams. In terms of making it easier to access the rail network, all the wrong stock is being refurbished so it's fully accessible and that creates a flexible space so we can improve the number of bikes we can get on trains. We have a big investment programme to improve the number of car parking spaces across the network and, indeed, cycle spaces. We have a transport integration strategy and a manager. We're putting investment into this area. It's also fair to say that in this five-year control period, which Network Rail is regulated by, we're actually due to underspend here in Scotland, which is a great achievement and is in part as a result of the fact that the investment programme is on time and on budget and these investments are handing back contingency because they don't need it. We're looking to see what can be done quickly in the next 12 months to sort of upgrade the already investment programme in car parking to create more spaces. Improving the accessibility of the railway is a key part of our strategy because with the additional seats that we've got and the additional frequencies, we'll actually have 40 per cent more seats to sell. It's supplementary and then I'm going to bring Gal Ross. Yes, sure. Maybe I'll park the potential supplementary on underspend if someone else wants to pick that up. I'll move on to my other question. Excuse me. I just wonder what Mr Hines's views were on the recent headlines from the rail delivery group and other passenger user groups around the complicated ticketing system that exists in the UK. Apparently there are 55 million combinations of tickets in the UK and they're calling for a Root and Branch review and reform of the system. Do you think that there should be reform of ticket pricing in the UK and what sort of changes do you think would best benefit the commuter? I think it's certainly something we should take a look at because when I talk to customers, they find the fares and ticketing system very complicated. A great example for that was last week I was at a public meeting in Elgin where if you're travelling between Elgin and the Central Blel, you can either go via Inverness or Aberdeen. It's a different fare. If you split the ticket, you get a cheaper price. This is difficult to explain to customers. Essentially what we have is a fares and ticketing system that is the same as it was 20 years ago, adjusted for inflation. I think that there are definitely opportunities for us to make fares and ticketing simpler for customers to understand, which would be good for them, because then they would use the train more often. I do, convener. You talk about accessibility. We've been hearing in my other committee that I'm a member of, that people with disabilities have difficulties accessing the system sometimes and people with physical disabilities getting on and off trains, but people with sight impairments accessing timetables and things like that. How do you propose to address those issues? So every single train in the fleet will be fully accessible by the end of next year. So they'll have audio and visual information systems to help sight impaired people. They'll have disabled toilets, for example. Obviously we have two people on board every train in Scotland, so that helps to provide greater assistance for those people who need a bit more help. We have an accessibility forum where groups representing certain categories of customers who might need a bit of extra help can work with us to improve the service that we provide. We've already got big investment programmes to improve the accessibility of the network, and we work with lots of groups to do even better on this agenda. It's a big opportunity for us. The challenge, of course, is stations, but that's why every time we go in and we invest in new station infrastructure, like forests, like Glasgow Queen Street, we make it fully accessible, we build it to the latest accessibility standards to make sure that Scotland's railway is accessible to all. I'm going to briefly let you come in, John, but I would ask you if you could keep it as brief as possible. It's a very short supplementary. I hope I heard Mr Hines correctly, but with two people in the world every train, Mr Hines, is this an announcement that you're telling us that you're going to reverse the driver only operating arrangements in the Strathclyde area? Yes. In Strathclyde area, we have driver only operation, which means that the train is capable of being operated without a second person on board. We roster a ticket examiner on board every one of those trains, and a recent area of focus for myself, Angus and the team, has been to make sure that we reduce the number of services only a handful each day, which is run without a ticket examiner. We've been working with our staff and our trade unions to improve our performance in that area, which is measured by Squire, which forms part of our Squire improvement plan. That's not a safety critical guard? It's not, no. Thank you, John. The final question is for Gail Ross. Thank you. You'll be aware that consumer organisation, which recently raised concerns about how passengers access the delay-repay compensation scheme—had to say that one slowly. In light of those concerns, are you going to look at the way that scheme is operated, and do you have any plans to make compensation automatic? We proactively push delay-repay in terms of when we have train service disruption, we say to customers that they are entitled to delay-repay. This is how you claim it. The industry—not just ScotRail, but the industry—has recently changed the national rail conditions of carriage to reflect the Consumer Rights Act. In the past, it was the case that you got your delay-repay and there was no consequential loss. We've changed the national rail conditions of carriage, which apply to ScotRail, which says that if you have suffered a consequential loss, you're free to make a claim and we'll consider it on its merits. There's a couple of things that we're looking at to further improve the compensation scheme for customers. In some other places, they're paying it at a lower threshold, so a 15-minute delay, rather than a 30-minute delay. The other is, as you say, some operators make it automatic. We're doing a piece of work at the moment to see what could be done here. Thank you very much. That brings us to the end of this session. I'd like to thank you, Alex, for coming in and Angus and David, for giving evidence to this committee. I'm now going to briefly suspend the meeting for five minutes to allow the changeover of witness. Good morning again. We're now going to move on to agenda item 3, which is the salmon farming in Scotland inquiry. I'd like to welcome Donald Cameron and Graham Day from the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. I would also like to ask Members to declare at this stage any interests. I would like to declare that I have an interest in a wild fishery and I have made a full declaration of my interests at the start of this inquiry. Would anyone else like to make a declaration of interests? Donald? Thank you, convener. Can I refer to the declaration that I made on 5 March with reference to both a fish farm and a wild fishery? Thank you. This is our sixth evidence session on the committee's salmon farming in Scotland inquiry, and the committee will now take evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Connectivity with his officials. I'd like to welcome Fergus Ewing, the Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Connectivity, Mike Palmer, the Deputy Director, Alasdair Mitchell, the head of aquaculture and recreational fisheries, and Charles Allen, the head of the fish health inspectorate. Cabinet Secretary, would you like to make a brief opening statement, please? Good morning, convener, and committee members. I'm very grateful for the chance to address you today with my officials. I am as you all know a very strong and public advocate for the aquaculture sector in Scotland and for the many benefits and opportunities it brings and will continue to provide for the people of Scotland. I've been following the inquiry and the report by a clear committee which has brought sharply into focus many of the issues that we as Government have been working with the sector to resolve. I think that we should acknowledge that the sector has come a long way from where it was, and things have not been standing still by any means. The message coming from us, from science and indeed from the industry itself, from whom I believe members heard last week, echoes the message from the clear report that the current status quo is not acceptable. I come here today on the back of a number of significant developments, convener, many of which have been in train for some time, but have been progressed against the backdrop of the two committee inquiries and also expectations on the way forward. Those include briefly a commitment to look at the potential for an alternative consenting regime that addresses concerns from local planners and environmental groups around the current planning regimes and some of the areas of dispute concerning the applicability of the precautionary principle. I also see this examining question around the way in which the differing regulatory regimes mesh with each other a theme that has featured already during this inquiry. Secondly, an agreement with the sector to sustainably manage the capture of wild grass used as cleaner fish. Thirdly, a new permitted development order to bring more transparency to changes in routine husbandry in aquaculture. As I have outlined at the aquaculture industry leadership group, we shall be establishing an independently chaired working group to look inevitably at how we move the dialogue around the interaction between wild and farmed salmon against the backdrop of diverging and sometimes inconsistent science. Finally, in autumn last year, I made a commitment in our programme for government to work with the sector to develop a farmed fish health framework in order to address many of the health issues highlighted in the Eclare report. I can say that we expect that the framework document shall be ready for publication relatively soon. That framework provides a clear message that we are determined to ensure that the challenges of health and disease are addressed both in the immediate and the long term. It demonstrates that we are constantly working to improve how the salmon sector operates because we fully support the industry's ambitions. However, let us be clear here that we do not accept growth at any expense. Growth must be sustainable growth. That reality is not lost in the sector for them to have a reliance and an economic vested interest in our natural landscape and surroundings. Indeed, however, you look to quantify the recognised Scottish premium, the environment is one, if not the most important, of its component parts. I have come today in the hope that, collectively, we can agree both in the importance of aquaculture, convener, to the Scottish economy, but also how we might best resolve some of the concerns and reservations that others retain. I do believe that we can resolve that conundrum without detriment or conflict. Aquaculture has received considerable attention of late, a testament to its continued success story and the accompanying additional public scrutiny that naturally travels alongside. It has received significant public criticism, some understandable but much unevidence and emotive in language. In closing, I hope that you will agree that the work that we have been doing and the work that we are to do amounts to a rigorous commitment to the environmental sustainability of the salmon farming sector in Scotland. By getting all parties around the table, we will ensure that everyone's voice is heard. The outcome of the committee process will have a significant impact on all concern, and we should recognise that we all have a responsibility to get that right. Cabinet Secretary, thank you very much and thank you for your opening remarks. I am very pleased that you clarified in your opening remarks the environmental statement. I have to say, as convener of the committee, that I was slightly concerned when I heard you quoted to say that I was determined to give leadership, or that you were determined to give leadership, and that you could make sure that no matter what challenges were thrown at the industry, you would double growth. That seemed an odd comment to make when two committees of this Parliament were in the process of carrying out a review. I am glad that you have clarified that position today, and I would ask Kate to ask the first question. Thank you very much, convener. We have learned in the committee that salmon is the most popular fish in the UK shopping basket, and we obviously hear regularly about the fantastic export figures for Scottish food and drink. How important is that Scottish brand for Scottish farm salmon, and how important is the perception that farm salmon has been produced in a pristine environment to high standards? Let me first of all say, convener, that, in the report that you referred to, it was inaccurate and incomplete. I made clear in the course of the remarks that I gave in that speech, which was over in Brussels, that I support sustainable growth. I made that absolutely clear and that we must overcome the challenges. To answer the member's question, it is extremely important. Salmon is our biggest export in terms of food, because salmon has, I believe, the lowest carbon footprint of all major foodstuffs, and that is something that is very important to stress. It is important because of its nutritious or nutrition value—I am no expert, but all the experts tell me that it is one of the most nutritious foods available, and it is important because we have the capacity of achieving the targets that the industry has. They are not government targets, they are industry targets, but they have been emphasised, and I believe that, last week by the industry panel, they are not either in support of growth at any cost. We all recognise the significant challenges that I fully expect will come on to discuss at Lens today, as is absolutely correct. Those must be overcome. There is some evidence, I think, convener, that—you heard this last week—one company mentioned the reduction of sea-lice numbers by 87 per cent in adult females. For example, there is some evidence that the vast investment and effort collectively being made by the public and private sector in Scotland is overcoming those challenges. However, I emphasise right at the beginning that it is very important to me that we recognise and face those things head on as we have been doing. We carry on the work that we have put in the train that Roseanna Cunning and I highlighted in our statement in March last year. However, we want to be bold and ambitious, and we want to achieve the food and drink standards or targets that are set by the industry of doubling the value of food and drink sectors as a whole to £30 billion by 2030. If we are to do that, convener—I will finish with this—it is only logical and correct that Scottish salmon, with the high premium it carries, has the highest regard in the world of any country. It is logical and important that we start off with the view that we want to enable that to happen by working together to overcome those challenges. There is a brief supplementary from Gail Ross, the deputy convener. Thank you, convener. Good morning, panel. Cabinet Secretary, we heard a lot in previous evidence sessions about the benefits to the rural economy. We had specific reports from HIE and Marine Scotland that gave us stats about that. One good example is Migdial Smolts in my constituency, but I wonder if you could briefly touch on how you think that aquaculture benefits the rural economy. At the macro level, it contributes enormously with supports over 12,000 jobs and contributes £620 million a year to the economy. I gather that evidence has been received by the committee about the hidden but huge impacts on communities throughout Gail Ross's constituency, Kate Forbes's constituency and the Highlands and the islands in particular. On the supply chain, Stuart Graham said that, for every work in primary, it supported five jobs in the supply chain. I am acutely conscious of having represented Lachaber by Kate Forbes. Communities such as Lachalin are sustained by fish farming. The evidence from Inverloosa Marine Services based on MUL is employing 70 people. The Migdial example was given by Gail Ross as a boner bridge company that has 17 full-time employees. Graw staff pays in the region of £600,000. Without, if aquaculture were not to exist, then many rural communities in the west highlands and in the northern islands would be imperiled because they would lose people to the auxiliary fire service. They would lose children who are attending small schools in rural areas. I am absolutely passionate and an advocate that aquaculture, over the last five decades, has been an enormous benefit to those communities. I think that we don't hear that side of the story, convener, enough. I am very grateful for the opportunity just to give a few examples, but there could be hundreds more examples. I will finish with this. I was involved in respect of the tragic death of two fishmen in the Nancy Glen. A third fisherman was rescued in an act of outstanding bravery, and that was in part because of a passing fish farm vessel. In all sorts of hidden ways, this industry is making an enormous contribution. Sometimes I wish we would hear more about that in the public reports about the sector. I remind all committee members that, indeed, there is an awful lot of ground that we wish to cover today. That is the first question, which has taken 15 minutes. We would still at that rate be here by 4.35 o'clock this evening. I would ask everyone to make sure that their answers and questions are as focused as possible. Peter, yours is the next question. With that in mind, there is a great desire for this sector to grow, both by government and by the industry itself. The industry figures are projected to grow from 162,000 to 210,000 tonnes by 2020. That has to be done sustainably, as you have already said, but there is a huge demand for this product. There are environmental issues. The status quo, I think that we have all accepted, is unacceptable. Has the Scottish Government adopted industry growth targets without a robust assessment of the environmental carrying capacity for increased growth? If you have done that assessment, where is it? First of all, as I said earlier, we have not adopted, as government targets, the industry targets. That is an important distinction that I would ask members to bear in mind. We are supportive of the industry achieving its potential. In that regard, I would point to the evidence that was last week received from one of the panel who said that doubling growth does not necessarily mean doubling numbers. We are looking to increase value. The value added of smoked salmon produce is enormous and it is growing. All of us know that from the high-quality produce that we see on the shelves of retailers. It is not simply about doubling stock numbers. Secondly, we are absolutely in favour of the various techniques that are being used in order to seek growth but to do so sustainably. For example, last week, one of the contributors said that they formerly had, I think, 33 fish farm sites, but that has been reduced very substantially. They have changed the model. They have changed the location of sites. They have changed the practices, which no doubt we will come on to. We are supportive of growth, but it must be sustainable, Mr Chapman. I recognise that you as a farmer have the same concerns on land as the representatives from whom we heard last week have on-sea in farming about overcoming the mortality challenges. I found their evidence extremely impressive and absolutely sincere. It is impressive in the sense that, in some respects—not all of them in some respects—the challenges are being overcome and sea-lice numbers are now at the lowest since 2013, for example. That did not happen by accident, precisely because of the efforts and investment that is being made. Basically, you are saying that there has not been a Government assessment of the environmental car and capacity of the industry as it grows. There is no work being done to assess. I did not say that at all, but, to answer that point, Mr Palmer could provide some more factual evidence. I just wanted to say that the various regulatory agencies constantly are looking to review the assessments that they make and the kind of analyses and modelling that they can put in place in order to ensure that there is sufficient environmental protection to support the growth aspirations of the sector. For example, CEPA, as I think you have heard in previous evidence, has been developing depositional zone regulations, which will take us on quite substantially from the previous approaches to monitoring discharge into the water column. Similarly, we have the Scottish Shelf model, which is a new approach to hydrodynamic modelling, which is going to, in a much more precise way, help us to predict various different tidal flows and water energy flows. All of these initiatives, which we constantly work on in Marine Scotland, in Marine Scotland Science and with the different regulators that we collaborate with, are constantly being developed. They are being discussed with the sector so that we can create an enabling environment for sustainable growth, but it has to be sustainable and everybody is very clear about that. In a way, this is a reflection and an expression of the adaptive management approach that I know has featured in previous sessions of this inquiry. It is a constantly changing picture in terms of the modelling that we can put in place and therefore the assessments that we can make with our regulatory partners. I am conscious that everyone would like to say something. I am very happy to try to bring as many people in as possible. If I just remind witnesses that it is up to me to bring people in, I would like to add briefly that every new farm or major expansion of a farm does undergo an environmental impact assessment as part of the planning approach, so that considers, alongside all the statutory authorities, the ability of that particular water body to accommodate that development. I would like to bring in John Finnie. I mean, just one final question on that. In the panel's view, what are the key challenges to growing this industry? Well, I passed officials, but in brief, the key challenges are overcoming the disease and mortality issue. That is the number one challenge and I think that is what you heard last week in evidence as well. Do officials want to expand on that? I think that we are going to come on to those specific topics shortly. Maybe I can bring in John Finnie at this stage, because I think that you have got a supplementary on that. Thank you very much, convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary. If you would indulge me, convener, I would like to read a very small quote from one of the bits of evidence that we got. It is from the Fisheries Management Scotland. They say that the growth target, as you confirmed, is included within the aquaculture growth to 2030, are industry targets. They are not government targets, albeit that you have indicated if I noted you correctly your support of them. There has been no assessment of the environmental sustainability of those targets, nor have they been subject to strategic environmental assessment. The report only includes passing mention of the environmental challenges facing the industry and no mention at all of well fisheries interactions. This is, again, Fisheries Management Scotland. We do not consider that industry growth targets should be adopted by the Scottish Government or included in the national marine plan. Without a robust assessment of the environmental carrying capacity for increased growth, including fish farms, I agree with you that I represent a large rural area, and the value of those jobs is immense and the wider implications of not just the jobs in the farm, but the precautionary principle must apply. You acknowledged earlier on that the status quo is not acceptable. Indeed, there have been many measured comments about that. You have said the challenge, if I noted you correctly, just as the convener came to me. Overcoming disease and mortality is the issue. Does that not all lead to a position where you should be calling for an immediate moratorium and expansion in pending resolution of those issues? First of all, we already do apply the precautionary principle. Secondly, we take an evidence-based approach. Mr Palmer has already said that any application for consent for a new farm must undergo environmental assessment. Thirdly, and again this was stressed in evidence before the committee before, a huge amount of work has been done on modelling. Mr Palmer began to talk about that work. It is very important work, and that modelling is in the form of assessment. Fourthly, the production in the most prolific producer of farmstown in the world in Norway is massively greater than ours, and it can be demonstrated that greater production can be done sustainably. I should emphasise that the industry has set out figures by which it seeks to achieve by 2030. I am not sure that they have set them out in tablets of stone as targets. The word aspirations was used. You would have to check the record, but that is what Mr Graham said in his evidence last week. In all of those points, we are already doing what Mr Finnie is asking us to do, and there is further evidence about the action that we have taken since this Government came into power, for example, in tightening up various parts of the regulatory framework. Demonstrates our desire to take these things head-on. I do not know if officials would—it is a very important question, but I certainly do not think that the moratorium would be justified. I do contend that we apply the precautionary principle ready, and maybe the officials could expand on that, convener, usefully. I think that John Scott has a supplementary to that, which might add and allow the officials to come in to answer both questions at the same time, cabinet secretary. John. I follow on to Mr Chapman's. You said that there are not the Government's targets, cabinet secretary, but you said that you are supportive of those targets, and you said that you take an evidence-based approach. However, you do not deny that there is not an environmental sustainability assessment made of those targets, nor a strategic environmental assessment. Does that not seem to be adopting either the precautionary principle or an evidence-based approach to policy making? No, I have made it absolutely clear that we are not—I said this just right at the outset, and it is on the record—that we are not in favour of growth at any cost, we are in favour of sustainable growth. I have also said that we must overcome the challenges. What I feel, convener, is that the work that has already been done and is being done to overcome those challenges needs to be looked at factually and forensically, and those who do that will come to the conclusion, as I have done, that success is being achieved, but there is more to be done. Those are the immediate tasks ahead, as I see it in general policy terms. Again, I think that it probably would be useful if officials could add more factual background, convener, if that is permissible. Do you want to come in on that? Yes, just to say that, in terms of the precautionary principle, that is embedded at all levels in all that we do as regulators. It is embedded at the national level in terms of how we take forward policy. It is embedded within the planning system, it is embedded within SEPA's approach and the approach on Scottish natural heritage, and any regulator that touches upon agriculture or, indeed, any impact on the environment. That principle is very much alive and kicking in something that we cherish very much and is at the heart of our approach to sustainable growth. In terms of environmental assessments, as my colleague Alasdair Mitchell has commented, there is an environmental impact assessment that is a part of each planning application, so that occurs at a local level. In terms of the growth element, I understand what will take place in respect of each individual application. It is the depth of evidence in respect of the Government's support for this growth target. We have made clear as a Government that we are supportive of the growth target as a target that would be achieved sustainably. We would not be supportive of growth at any cost. It has to be growth that is balanced with the protection of the environment. I might refer the committee to the joint policy statement that was issued by Mr Ewing and Ms Cunningham last year on agriculture, which made very clear that we take a balance view around sustainable growth. That is the message that we have given the sector. I think that you have heard about the agriculture industry leadership group, which Mr Ewing sits on. That group has a remit of bringing all the key regulators and Government and the sector together to work out how we can create an enabling environment for sustainable growth towards those targets. On that group, we have made very clear and the sector has welcomed the message that we have given them, that we need to find and improve and constantly enhance the regulatory approach that we take in order to ensure that the environment is protected as we move towards those aspirations that the sector has. I am conscious of a lot of other questions. I will leave it there. I think that we will move on to the next question, which is Kate Forbes. Thank you very much. I want to touch on mortalities. Obviously, with any livestock production, there will be a level of mortality, but the mortalities appear to have increased from 2014 to the present day when it comes to fish farming. A farmed fish health framework, I understand, is being developed by the industry in partnership with the Scottish Government, with the support of all salmon farming companies, setting out a strategic framework of high-level fish health objectives for the next 10 years to underpin the sustainable growth of Scottish aquaculture. When will that framework be published? Will it be compulsory or voluntary? What is the cabinet secretary's view on how this health framework can help to reduce mortalities? The farmed fish health framework is a programme for government commitment that I made last year and which we are about to implement very shortly. It will be published relatively soon. It will include a commitment that is relevant to your question to present the annual mortality rates in the fish farming industry by cause. Obviously, we all wish to drive down the mortality rates. Ideally, a mortality rate of zero is what any farmer land or sea would aspire to, whether it is farmed salmon, lams or dairy cattle. Sadly, life shows that that is extremely challenging. However, the fish health framework will take that head-on in that particular respect. Will it be voluntary or compulsory? We will already have a statutory underpinning of regulations, which we look at continuously. Of course, there may be ways in which the regulatory and consenting system can be improved, as the First Minister opined recently. We are keen to look at that, so we have an open mind on that. A lot of work has been done on that. As no doubt, we may come to other questions. However, there is a certain amount of work that we can do with the statutory underpinning and by legislative action. We can do a lot more work by best practice. It has been said in evidence that the code of practice and the technical standards that we have produced in Scotland have been regarded as leading in the world, but we do not want to rest on our laurels in the past. That is a dynamic, fast-moving situation, as we have heard from witnesses. We have to ensure that the response, statutory and voluntary, is to complement each other and are effective. The substance of the draft framework. You mentioned that there would be a requirement to publish data. Will there be other regulatory requirements that are new for the sector? The focus areas for the framework will come as no surprise, and we will probably cover all those things. I will just mention them briefly, because I imagine that we may well come on to them in questions. The information flow, the transparency of the industry, wants to be more transparent, and that is necessary. The gill health issue is paramount. The sea lice issue is obviously. Cleaner fish, I have already mentioned. The production cycle and on-farm management, the licensing regime and medicine use, and climate change. Those are some of the areas that would be an areas of focus of the framework. For each key work stream that will be done in those areas, a group will be established to take forward the work. Prior to the establishment of the two parliamentary inquiries, a work was well under way on the framework, which is near completion, and it will cover all those areas, and rightly so, because we are determined that working against Team Scotland, public and private sector and regulators and researchers, we tackle those significant challenges effectively. Before we move on to the next set of questions, it would be very helpful for the committee if I could ask you, I believe, when this high level farmed fish health framework will be delivered. You have said that the words were shortly nearly completed. We have a report to consider, and it would be helpful to know whether we will be in a position to consider this high level farmed fish health framework during the consideration of our report. Relatively soon is the phrase that I used. It was the phrase that I didn't use quite deliberately, so relatively soon. Stuart, yours is the next question. Thank you very much, convener. I narrowly want to look at sea lice. It is maybe worth just saying that I, as a member of the clear committee and this committee, I view that the work of the two committees really has been one inquiry, perhaps rather than two, albeit there will be publication in various reports at different times. The clear committee unanimously made pretty clear what it was looking for the industry to deliver in the way of data about female sea lice. It is welcoming the increased data that is coming from the industry. Nonetheless, it is still running substantially in the rears. It does not give fish numbers in farms, and that makes it very difficult to normalise the data and enable independent researchers to look at that. In relation to the Government, is the Government working with the industry to try and meet the kind of standards that the clear committee laid out in its contribution to the inquiry, but perhaps even more fundamentally getting us to a position that the Norwegian industry seems to be in, where there is a real time or virtually real time view of what is happening in relation to sea lice and indeed diseases more generally? I think that the industry is absolutely keen to be as transparent as possible. As I understand it, Mr Lansborough last week said that further reportage is being delivered. However, Mr Stevens is right to say that the reportage is not quite as up-to-date as it is in Norway, and I think that last week, convener, you brandished a sheet of paper on which spice is extracted as an example of the information that could be available from a website for a particular Norwegian farm. I think that, as I understand the student correctly, the information is published for every farm, but three months in the rears is now published or to be published on a monthly basis as opposed to a quarterly basis. The industry is on a journey and has a desire to be as transparent as possible. We want them to be as transparent as possible, and so we are working with them on that. At some point, convener, I thought that it might be useful if Mr Allen, who is head of the fish health inspectorate and who is dealing daily with all of this, might be able to run through a brief description of the regulatory regime and how it operates, because I did feel with the time that we have that it might be a useful piece of evidence to get into your record with your permission. I might address that. I very specifically asked about what the Government is doing, and I think that I am about to hear it, but I would specifically think that I would like to hear what the Government is doing to help the industry to raise their game in that respect, because I think that the Government may have a role in that. If you conclude that it does not, then let us hear that that is the case. Should we bring in Charles at this stage to hear what he is saying and then, if you want to add briefly, cabinet secretary. Charles, if I could ask you to come in briefly on that. I think that I would first like to say that the trick that is to be gained is to make sure that any data that is published is correct and accurate. Unfortunately, that takes some time, which would explain part of the time lag. We are considering how we publish our own data, and indeed we will be seeking to publish information collected under the regulatory regime separately to that of industry, so there will be more than one set of data available. However, at a higher level, the found fish framework is seeking to address the provision of data on the sea lies. I am sure that Stewart wants to come back again. Maybe we can see if we can take the two together. Thank you, convener. Just to follow on the theme, I find the language being used quite troubling. Why are we coming at this from the view that it is up to industry to mark its own homework in this respect? Why isn't government taking the lead, as is the case in Norway, where data is not just as real-time as it can get—the quality of data is good—but we are not just using data to be reactive to what may have gone wrong. We are using big data in a meaningful way to make future decisions and improvements as real-time as possible. I have a worry that we are looking at this from a point of view that the Government will help industry rather than why is it not the Government taking leadership in the regulatory environment around this very important data. I will take Stewart in as well, and then Stewart. I just have Mr Allan say that the Government is going to be publishing figures as well, and I have a very narrow question there. We do not need to get to a position where there is just one set of figures that we can all rely on and that perhaps the independence that comes from figures that come through the regulatory process might be what the Government would like to tell us is the destination that we are going for. Cabinet Secretary, you want to come in on that. I think that Mr Power wants to come in on that. I want to take us back to the farm fish framework. I know that that is frustrating for the committee because you have not yet seen it and it is not quite ready to be published yet. As the cabinet secretary said before, that is perhaps the very first focus of that framework. It is transparency and data flows and making sure that we are working with the industry and that we are taking a leadership role there as a Government with the industry to improve the transparency of data. As the cabinet secretary said, to go on that journey to enhance the real-time nature of that as quickly as we can, it is a big step forward that has recently been taken to get farm level sea lice data on a monthly basis, which the industry has undertaken to provide and has just been provided in its first edition. We will then work through the delivery of the farm fish framework to take further steps with the industry on that and the Government will be very much at the heart of that and leading that process. Joe, do you want to come back? Let me just clarify what Mr Palmer has just said. He said two things that I could imagine are in conflict. Government will be very much at the heart of that and then immediately said that the Government will be leading. Which is it? I think that there are two different things. I think that I would like the Government ultimately to be publishing figures that the Government says are figures published with our imprimatur for which we take responsibility. Is that the destination that we are going to? The Government is leading on that. We have made it clear to industry in the various forums in which we engage. Transparency is something that we require and it is heartening to see, as you have heard last week, that the industry is listening and acting and improving the level of data. That is absolutely right, but I did say that we are on a journey and we are not at the journey's end yet. We have heard from Mr Allan, who is the head of the FHI, that the data must be accurate. The industry is now responding to our lead and that there must be greater transparency. I do not think that there is actually an issue here from what I heard, from what I know, from the dealings that I have had, from the work that I have done over the past nearly two years in this job. The industry is determined to be more transparent than it has in the past. There are some concerns. They were voiced, I think, by Stuart Grayman as evidence last week about potential risks involved, and I will not dwell on that, but I think that they have to be taken into account. Nonetheless, we have been leading and we shall continue to lead on that. If further action is required, then, of course, it will be taken. However, I hope that the committee will recognise that progress is being made, and that is something that the fish health framework will take forward. I think that it would be fair to say that I did hold up a sheet of paper that showed the lies and the disease levels of a farm. You can do that on the website for any farm in Norway, and it is two weeks behind. Given that most of the companies that operate in Scotland also operate in Norway, and given that one of the companies that operates in Scotland operates that particular website that inputs the data to that farm in Norway, which is so readily available, is there any reason why it could not be transposed here in an accurate way in the same way that they are in Norway? I do not understand why they are finding it so difficult to do the Scotland figures when they do it so well in Norway, cabinet secretary. Well, I think that the industry indicated that it wanted to do more, and we wish them to do more. We have made that absolutely clear. There are a large number of practical issues here. I think that the evidence that you heard last week in response to Ben Hadfield said that, in some ways, Norway is ahead in regulations, but he then added that, in some ways, Scotland is ahead in regulations. We should remember that and do not always be taking a gloomy view about the regulatory framework in Scotland, which has had a lot of praise. In that respect, you are right that there is more to be done, and the particular reasons behind that and the processes will be ones that will be considered in the fish health framework. I think that Mr Mitchell might have some more information to provide. I would like to move on to Colin Smyth's next question. I think that it is worth pointing out that there has been a very significant Government investment in Norway to deliver on that particular website. It is a relatively recent website development that you were able to tap into. It is very much the case that we would want to get into that space over time, but that might cost money. Currently, the SSPO co-ordinates all of the data, and that is part of the issue that we need to work through. I turn specifically to the issue of sea lice trigger levels. The industry code of good practice suggests a trigger level of between 0.5 and 1 adult female lice per fish, but Marine Scotland's trigger level is for farms to only report sea lice to Marine Scotland at a level of three lice, and Marine Scotland only intervenes at a level of eight lice. That is obviously a lot higher than the code of good practice, and it is a lot higher than, for example, the level set in Norway. Why is the trigger level by Marine Scotland so high, and what is the impact of having a higher level when it comes to that trigger? Scotland has never set trigger levels for sea lice, but instead the reporting and intervention levels and its compliance policy are used by the fish health inspectorate, whose head I think probably would be best placed to answer this question if that is in order, convener. If I may, I will give you a very brief and rapid canter through the agriculture fisheries Scotland act. When it was introduced in 2007, it gave the inspectorate powers to inspect, and it allowed us to look at measures in place to control, prevent and reduce sea lice, and it gave us powers to look at the number of sea lice. That is the limit of the regulatory regime for sea lice in Scotland. Coming forward a decade, we reviewed the policy in place, which we considered with regard to satisfactory measures to control sea lice. In 2007, if you had access to all of the veterinary medicines, you were deemed to be compliant. You had satisfactory measures in place. We have reviewed that policy more with regard to how those measures can be demonstrated to be satisfactory, so actually seeing numbers increasing or decreasing. Under the previous regime, you could have a very high sea lice number but still be compliant. Now we have required farmers to demonstrate that they can positively treat the sea lice numbers by reducing the number to an acceptable level. Something that you would wish to be aware of is that the code of good practice and the regulatory regime seek to do something slightly different, so the numbers in place are different. If we look at the first decade of the delivery of the legislation, no warning letters, no enforcement notices were served. In 2017, we changed the policy and came to a demonstration of satisfactory levels where satisfactory levels could not be demonstrated. We have since served a number of warning letters and enforcement notices. I hope that that will be the case. I do not really answer why you set the trigger level at the level that is set. It seems pretty arbitrary to me, and it is different. Why is that level set at the level of three lice and intervention at eight lice? What is the basis for that level? It is obviously different from other regimes. The point at which we were considering the change in policy, and you have to bear in mind that it predated the introduction of the policy, we considered the average and peak numbers of lice on farms in Scotland. There was an analysis carried out by Murray and Hall, which I believe that a copy has been submitted. There were the average numbers that were available at the time. We are seeking to review the policy in July, and it is most likely that those numbers will change significantly. Based on the numbers that you currently use, how many times has Marine Scotland required a farm to take action based on those current trigger levels? The industry is very good at proactively managing their lice numbers. I have only served one enforcement notice in the past 10 months. One of the pieces of evidence that the committee received was to suggest that, because SEPA effectively decided how many fish are allowed in a cage, it is reasonable to say that they are in effect over sea and sea lice by default. Do you think that that is a fair point? I think that I would correct you in your terminology. SEPA does not decide the number of fish that are available in a cage. It would set a maximum biomass that is acceptable to be on site. Do you think that I am quoting the evidence that was given to the committee last week by John Gibb? SEPA effectively decided on the biomass at a site, so the accusation is that they, by default, are effectively set in the level of sea lice. I don't think that I would agree with that. The next series of questions is from John. I think that, following on from that, I think that if I got you correctly, cabinet secretary, you used a phrase that was something like divergent and inconsistent science, i.e., we are getting very different views from different sectors. That has been very much the case in the whole question of disease and or lice being transmitted between farmed and wild fish. On the one hand, we have had people saying clearly that things have got a lot worse and that the fish have all vanished from the rivers because the fish farms are there. Other people have said that, since the 1950s, the number of salmon has been declining in the rivers, so it has got nothing to do with the farms. We are getting very opposite views on that issue. Have you made a decision on that? Have you got a view on that? The number of things. Those are inherently difficult areas for science. On a very basic level, let us remind ourselves that what is happening is happening under the surface of the sea, and, therefore, it is, by its nature, not a straightforward thing to obtain evidence, visual evidence, as one can do where farming, for example, occurs on land. It is inherently difficult, and, therefore, the task of marine scientists is, by its nature, not a straightforward one. When I referred to inconsistent evidence, I had in mind particularly the evidence in relation to the question of whether and what impact there is between farm salmon and wild salmon. That is precisely why, convener, as I said in my opening remarks, that the Cabinet Secretary for the Environment and I both agree that this must be looked at by a working group of experts, and we are in the course of setting and finalising the setting up at the moment. They will be tasked to look at all the evidence, but not punting it out forever, but doing so quickly and speedily, and to review the evidence and to consider all the literature and other evidence concerning the environmental impacts of salmon farms on wild salmon and agriculture interventions. I have looked at this myself, obviously, with advice, and I think that it is acknowledged that there are many factors that influence the health of wild salmon. I have seen 12 referred to, but I will not go through them, although I have in mind several of them. Therefore, it is an inherently complex business, but it is right that we get the best evidence and the evidential approach and the report that we get from the interactions group between farmed and wild salmon is, I think, the sensible way forward to look at that. That process was in train some time ago and we are just about to set up the group. I certainly want and I know that Rosanna Cunningham agrees with me that this work will be completed as quickly as possible, precisely because of the divergence in some of the evidence that we have, and the lack of evidence about the precise situation in Scotland, not least because in the west coast, some say that there are insufficient salmon numbers in order to form reliable samples in providing that evidence base. In the meantime, decisions are having to be made about whether farms grow, relocate, all of those kinds of things, based on incomplete evidence and maybe it will always be incomplete. Is it see-part that we look to to really look after that part of the planning process and the on-going regulation process or is it one of the other regulators? I think that the regulatory framework, the regulators, including SIPA and the planners, all have a role to play here, as does the industry. You heard Mr Hadfield last week saying that the particular regard has to be had at the time of the season when wild smolts go to sea from the salmon rivers. That is just one practical point that I would bring to bear. The industry has a role to play, so does SIPA and so do the planners. In relation to the sighting of future farms, those issues have to be considered on the basis of the best evidence. You did hear evidence from the industry. I move away from the sighting or location of fish farms in sea locks, if you like, where wild salmon is particularly important, further out to sea. For example, the ones around the Isle of Rhum, which I think need harvest, are looking. There is a whole range of responses. Evidence-based responses, convener, are taking place at the moment. However, there is more work to be done and we are determined to do it as quickly as possible following the Eclare report and the work of this committee. You are right, cabinet secretary, that we did hear the idea of farms being moved further out, although I think that the industry also said that there is quite a health and safety issue there for their staff and they would have a duty on that area. The final point is that we visited Lochaber some of us the other week and I think that it was very positive, but I found it very helpful. We met both people representing the wild fisheries and the salmon farms and they seemed to be talking to each other. I do not think that the relationship was perfect, but it seemed to be quite healthy. I do not think that that is the case all around Scotland. Has the Government got any role or is there anything that we can do to try and bring people together and get them to talk to each other? The example that you gave about certain times a year where you leave the farms fallow seems like a good one. Yes, I think that in Lochaber there is some positive news about salmon levels. For example, the River Loughy, and I think that the River Caron was referred to. There is a different picture on, as I understand it, and I am no expert. To answer your question, I think that it is very sensible to try to bring the wild salmon and the farm salmon sector together. It might be a bit of a challenge, but I think that it would be extremely desirable. Maybe the committee might consider in its report how that could be done, whether it could be done. I think that there is a cultural issue here of working together, all of us, to support marine activity, which seems to exist in Norway, but perhaps not quite so evident in Scotland. I sense that the conflict between various groups is really too tense and not really proportionate to the discussions that we should be having and which everybody should be seeking to co-exist and finding and adopting best practice. In that regard, convener, I would like to stress that the interactions group that I have referred to will have wild fish interests on it and represented, so we want all the relevant voices around the table, not only those of the farm sector. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Graham Day, I would like to bring you in at this stage. Thank you, convener. In terms of developing our knowledge-based, cabinet secretary, do you accept that we perhaps need to better understand the migratory routes of wild fish? Everyone when we get to that point uses that as a basis for planning where fish farms should go, i.e. keep them well away from those routes. That strikes me as perhaps a common sense approach. I think that it is certainly a common sense approach and it is an easy to enunciate principle. I think that the interactions group will look at that. I do not know if in fact they will be looking at that issue to see what more can be done about that. To ask a quick question and also to concur with the views of John Mason about Lochaber, which I know from personal experience, there is a very good relationship or at least a relationship between the wild fishery sector and the fish farming sector. My point is a bit more general than that. The Eichler committee noted that a lot of focus is often on fish farming at sea and that fresh water fish farming perhaps gets slightly ignored. Can the cabinet secretary reassure me that fresh water fish farming is on his radar, as it were, and that the environmental impacts of fresh water fish farming are being considered? Yes, I can. We have had meetings and attention given to that. Do you have more information on that, Charles? Freshwater salmon agriculture is the issues, the high-level issues, which are treated in a very similar way to salmon farming in the marine environment. Development would still be considered of the requirements for environmental impact assessments. The discharges for which are still regulated by SEPA, the disease issues are still regulated by ourselves and the natural heritage impacts or potential impacts are considered by SNH at the planning stage. One of the concerns of the Eichler committee was the volume of waste, discharges from fish farms. The industry versus the double production, but with that aim there may be more waste, cabinet secretary. SEPA has now issued this committee with an updated policy response further to the attendance at committee in 18 April, and I will read part of it. Changes that we will be making to the way that we regulate emissions of organic waste will, a, deliver a step change in the scientific monitoring and modelling of organic waste releases into the marine environment, b, help fish farm businesses to locate their operations where the sea has a necessary environment capacity to accommodate the scale of production that they are planning, and expose parts of the coast where strong tides can quickly dilute and disperse organic waste. Do you agree with SEPA's policy statement, and should some, as you are saying, and I would support, some farming organisations consider relocation to doubling their output? I should point out that this evidence was delivered to the committee late last night, so those people who have waded through it are the 162 responses that are still rising, which I will claim to have done formally today. I have not had a chance to consider this, not all of the committee has had a chance to consider it, so cabinet secretary, you may well not have seen it unless they gave you a response. I commend Mr Lyle on his diligence. I was being diligent, but in other ways, both last night and from quite early this morning. I became aware at quarter to 10 that SEPA had issued this extra information by which time it was rather late in the day to read through it. Plainly, those are important matters, and we respect the work that SEPA does as a regulator. The issue of waste was rightly highlighted by Eclair. I think that there was a very useful piece of evidence that I did read last night from Mr Hadfield to the convener of Eclair on 27 April, in which he did seek to correct some information given by the National Trust for Scotland about some of the problems relating to that, but that does not detract from the fact that those are important issues. There is a great deal of work—I am not quite sure which official can talk about the detail because I did read this last night, convener—but there are a lot of different types of work done to test waste, to control, to prevent waste from occurring in the first place, to deal with the deposition and the location of farms, to consider the fallow periods. Industry themselves are using more fallow periods in many occasions to allow the seabed to recover. There is the question of what the content is, and I would like to dispel in particular the idea that there are sort of fecal collar forms deposited. That is completely wrong. Unfortunate that one witness gave that evidence to Eclair, but fortunately Mr Hadfield dispeled that with his letter. There is a whole range of technical work done by SIPA. It is right to acknowledge that, because there is a real risk that committees that have inevitably a short space of time in which to research highly complex matters can be taken off track by one or two misguided witnesses. I think that Mr Mitchell may have some further technical information, convener, if the committee wishes it. Very briefly, just to add that Marine Scotland and the Scottish Government funded significant improvements to the modelling capability of SIPA through something called depomod, which allows them now to take judgment calls on improved data flow and modelling work, as far as the impact of new developments are concerned. It is again a bit of a journey, but we are improving the database and our understanding of what the impacts might be, and that is certainly something that SIPA is taking forward with the sector. Given the polluter pays principle, should fish farms who use the environment to simulate their waste pay for the ecosystem, and should, as I believe, the salmon—I do not think that the question has been asked yet—should the salmon industry come under the remit of one agency instead of dealing with several agencies for planning permission, licensing and different other things that they have to do? Should we not insist or not ensure that we have one agency dealing with the salmon industry and the wild—both wild and farmed salmon industry? Before we answer that question, Mr Lyle, you have just asked a question that Mr Rumbles was going to ask later, so I am going to suspend the question on regulatory framework because that comes later, and I am sorry at this stage that if you were ready to answer it, you will get a chance to answer it later. Could you go back to the original question that Mr Lyle answered gyda Palluta Pay's principal cabinet secretary? Plainly industry is responsible for its actions on the general level, but the whole point of the regulatory framework is to the code of practice, the whole point of the overall thorough nature of the environmental assessment and the technical rules about operating and managing fish farms is to prevent serious issues arising in the first place. In terms of technical legal arguments, I would like to say that we would need to look at specific instances, but in general, of course, the industry is responsible for its activities. I do not know if any official can add anything more specific to that. I think that Anne Anderson and her evidence did acknowledge that the SEPA charges were proportionate to the work at hand with any particular farm or organisation company. There is an inherent Palluta Pay's, if you will, within that context. The natural lead-on status, Kate, with your next question. A brief question on land-based closed containment. What is the panel's view on how that might amitigate the number of environmental concerns and be? Obviously, there are challenges in terms of the capital and the innovation. What kind of support could Government offer to the industry in terms of taking forward innovation? Yes, well, the recirculating aquaculture systems or closed containment in the production of smalls have been in use for the last decade in Scotland, last decade or so. There is one site opening at an inch more near Inverness and another in the construction phase at Oben, so this is very much a current development. I think that it is important to say that one should not assume that this type of fish farming, a different type, is free from the challenges that are faced by sea-based farming. That is, I believe, not the case. They do not necessarily mitigate the effects of disease and, no doubt, officials could expand on that. Nonetheless, they offer an attractive solution in addressing a number of concerns in relation to impacts on the marine environment, for example, potential impacts on wild salmon. There are some concerns about this technology, which I can share more detail in writing if the committee wishes, but it is seen, I think, as a positive development in all. Lastly, I know that HIE is, of course, very experienced in its support of the aquaculture sector, and it is very supportive. Also, SEIC has facilitated and helps with work in relation to innovation and research, as is correct. There is, I think, support available for taking forward this different type of fish farming. I think that that support is justified, but we have to not suspend our critical faculties in taking it forward. I am going to bring in Graham at this stage, and Kate, I will come back to you if you think that it is a follow-up Graham. I know that Alistair wants to answer, so I will be looking for you there. I appreciate that. Can I just pick up on some of the other cabinet secretaries that indicated the view that perhaps some of the evidence that the environment committee received was inaccurate? That can happen in an evidence-gathering process, but can I just explore another aspect of evidence that was taken in relation to coast containment because it was suggested to the environment committee, if I remember correctly, that if fish farming was moved onshore, fish farmers would require sewage treatment plants accompanying them almost on a one-to-one basis, which at face value would perhaps support the concerns that are out there about the amount of waste that is going into the marine environment. I wonder whether you could respond to that, whether you accept that that is accurate or not. Cabinet Secretary, do you want to come in? It is relatively not such a prevalent activity as seafarm, so I do not have a specific answer to that question. I do not know if officials can, but we could certainly get back to the member. I have lots of information here about potential areas that need to be looked at, but they do not really answer Mr Day's question. I do not know if any officials can add anything, or we could write to Mr Day and yourself, convener, with that information, if that is in order. I think that all I wish to observe is that this is very, very cutting-edge technology, so it is still being trialled and prototyped mainly in Norway. I think that it is quite speculative at the moment in terms of the assessments of what kind of infrastructure would need to be around closed containment functions and plants. I think that there is a general consensus that the energy use is relatively high and that they are hungry for energy, these installations. I think that, in terms of, therefore, the impact on energy, that is quite a serious consideration to be had. Further work is still needed. When we talk to the sector, it is very, very interested in these developments, but it is all clearly of a view that we are not quite yet at the stage where it can be rolled out at a kind of industrial scale. It is still in the prototype phase, so we are still learning, I think is the short answer. Cabinet Secretary, I think that the committee would like to take you up on the offer to receive a written submission on this, because there are evidence within the submissions that we have received to the committee's inquiry relating to closed containment. Therefore, further information, I am sure, would be extremely helpful. I would also say that the committee, when we went over to the west coast, saw a closed containment hatchery and production facility for smolts, which was extremely interesting. I am sure that more information will be much appreciated. We have heard that the United States is bringing in regulations by 2022 that, if we keep shooting seals, we will potentially lose access to a very lucrative market that, in 2017, was worth £193 million. We have heard that the number of seals being shot is decreasing, but it was still 49 in 2017. What are the Scottish Government doing to ensure that that number goes down to zero? Are you concerned that we may not get there by 2022? Cabinet Secretary, there are two parts to the question. Plainly, seopredation has long been recognised as a problem for fish farms. As Gilroth says, I am very pleased that the industry is now managing matters in such a way that the number of licences and controls are reducing. It is relevant to say that this is an area where technology can play and is playing a part in using sonar devices to scare off seals. The use of technology is an exciting area of agriculture that offers opportunities for economy, but it is also to do things that everyone would agree would be terrific, namely to eradicate the need to control any seals at all. The second part of the question relates to the impending deadline imposed by the USA in terms of the matter. My officials are looking at this carefully to understand exactly what those requirements in fact mean and to make sure that we understand them first and then consider how we deal with them. Those are matters on which there will be parliamentary traffic and on which I agree to report back to members when we have substantive progress. I do not know if there is anything more specific that we can say about that. We can confirm that we are in prior to discussions with DEFRA, with the EU and indeed we intend to be speaking to the US authorities this summer in the margins of the NASCO conference in Maine in the US in order to better understand exactly the extent of the regulation and how it might affect Scotland. There has been quite a process of securing absolute clarity on exactly how it will impact and clearly planning for that and ensuring that Scotland is ready for whatever the impact of the regulation will be. We are also conscious that we are not alone in this. Other agriculture nations that produce Atlantic salmon have similar concerns, Norway, Canada and Chile, so we are in dialogue with them too so that we are all comfortable with what the US regulations mean. Cabinet Secretary, you mentioned the use of acoustic deterrent devices. How are they currently regulated in Scotland? They have been used for many years to deter seals from attacking fish farm cages, which is a good thing. That has played a part in seeing a reduction in the number of seals having to be controlled. For example, there has been a reduction of 80 per cent in the seals that are controlled under licence since the licensing was introduced in 2011. The research suggests that some ADDs might result in significant disturbance for particular cetacean species. In terms of regulation, Marine Scotland science has been asked to review the science with a view to providing advice to inform future policy on their use. John Lennon, the next question is yours. Thank you very much, convener, and it is moving on to the subject of accreditation. We did a video conference with the Agriculture Stewardship Council, and they told us that one farm was accredited in Scotland. We have since learned that they have got issues with freshwater farming, and Marine Harvest told us that they were going to try and work through that. Since then, I am aware of SSPO code of good practice, Label Rouge, the Global Aquaculture Alliance best aquacultural practices, the Global Gap, RSPCA—I believe some of the supermarkets do their own accreditation. I have to say that I find this somewhat confusing picture, and if I went out to the shop and bought a bit salmon, I wouldn't know where to start. Does the Government have a view on accreditation and where we should be going with this? Well, I did hear previous evidence that suggested that it is somewhat complex, and also costly. I think that one of the companies last week mentioned a figure and not in a considerable amount of money that they invest in this, and rightly so, because we want to have the accreditation to ensure consumer protection and continuing confidence in consumers. I think that Mr Palmer can provide a little bit more information. As I think that you heard last week from the sector, there are many different forms of accreditation, and the companies in Scotland signed up to a number of them. It is not something that the Government has taken a role in. That is a feature of the commercial relationship often between a producing company and the retailers. It is clearly something that we as a Government would be supportive of in terms of encouraging our companies always to go beyond the bare statutory minimum, if you like, and to enhance that through different certification schemes, which is often what the retailers require of the producing companies. I know that you were not able to attract any retailers to come and give evidence to you, but I think that you would need to speak to them about their particular logic. The one thing that we do find interesting about the Aquaculture Stewardship Council certification is that it appears to have a remit that goes into the interactions with wild fish and wild salmon, and that is quite an interesting aspect of that particular scheme that seems to distinguish it from some of the other schemes. That is something that we talk to the sector about and explore with the sector where they wish to go with those kinds of schemes, but we would not prescribe to them on that. The one thing that we are involved with is the code of good practice, which the industry member signs up to. At its heart, many of the same requirements are in that code. Something in the order of 500 different points within that code, which are independently audited, form the base of many of those other accreditations. Charles May might want to add to that. I think that I would very briefly answer your question about how you choose your salmon. You choose Scotland first, independently, and it has been verified as the tastiest salmon. However, with regard to your question about accreditation schemes, what they seek to do is provide a differentiation in the market so that my salmon is different to your salmon because I am accredited under the scheme that you are accredited under. There are powers within the legislation if we see fit to adopt part of or all of an accreditation scheme. Mike, you referred to the number of times that accreditation visits take place. Some of the farmers have an entire department and every day there is somebody looking at an aspect of their accreditation, whether that is a regulator, a supermarket or a scheme provider. As a consumer, I still think that it is confusing. I absolutely buy a Scottish Salmon first choice, but there can be two or three different kinds within a supermarket. If I get confused, I am assuming that other people would as well. In an ideal world, if there was one stamp and you could go with that, given that some of those things are worldwide, do we just have to accept that it is a complex picture that there is not going to be one accreditation system? From what I am understanding, the Government is not saying that one is best. Cabinet Secretary, it is like you would like to answer that. The different measures that Mr Mason described are not all seeking to achieve the same function, but I do think that Mr Mason has a point, but it is probably primarily for industry to look at. We are very proud of the fact that Scottish Salmon has the label rouge distinction in France. Last week, the world's experts and consumers gathered at Brussels at the seafood expo, which I attended recently. I voted Scottish Salmon the tastiest by 7 out of 14, and that was three years running. We should recognise that our industry is doing something pretty well, given that it gets that. The accolades and commercial premium of 10 per cent or 50 to 60p a kilo are all very, very good things. My personal view is that we need to demonstrate its continuing sustainability in order to remain the top, number one, the best. That is why it is so important that the work that we are determined to do with regulators, industry, scientists and NGOs working together to tackle those challenges must be done with absolute determination and necessary resource, and that is what we are doing and what we will continue to do. That neatly leads on to the next question from John Finnie. Cabinet Secretary, we have had a lot of representations about oversight, and indeed that has been touched on today with a number of people commending, for instance, the Norway model. There have been a range of views presented to the committee that we have heard from James Whithers, Scottish Food and Rink, that a more strategic framework and overview of how the industry works would be useful. That term has been alluded to already in our discussions today, the agriculture industry leadership group. In written evidence, we hear from FMS that although we discussed it, and they say that the agriculture industry leadership group was discussed on 25 April. What was not qualified was that AILG has effectively replaced the ministerial group for sustainable agriculture, thereby leaving a significant gap in addressing interactions between famed and wild fish and the wider environment. I do not know if you would wish to comment on that specific point. We have a quote here from Fish Update, which I have to acknowledge, that I had never encountered before reading those papers. It outlines the comment attributed to you at the Fish Expo quote, that I am determined to give what leadership I can to make sure that, no matter what challenges are thrown at it, you double growth. Let's do it, let's go, Scotland. What leadership do you give to the salmon industry, cabinet secretary? I didn't do it at the beginning with the speeches that I made in Brussels. As I said today, we have to tackle those challenges to be successful. I would say that in every opportunity, and I repeat that. Only if we can do that can we go on to see the growth that I hope Mr Finnie would like to see. After all, Marine Harvest says that every day, there are six or seven million people who have a meal of salmon. There are seven thousand million people in the world. Many, many people in the world in poorer countries do not have the opportunity that we do, the luxury that we have, to enjoy this nutritious food, which, incidentally, Mr Finnie is the most effective in terms of the environment, with the lowest carbon footprint. As far as the ILG is concerned, you have heard from many witnesses that the Team Scotland approach is essential here, to bring people together so that we don't see silo working in terms of its place as it sits in the oversight role. I think that you have heard that we have specific groups doing specific tasks. Mr Hadfield and the chief scientist in Marine Scotland, chair one on fish health, we are setting up one on the impacts or possible impacts between farm salmon and wild salmon. We are giving the right attention to environmental issues as a Government. However, the purpose of those committees is, in part, an attempt for us to reassess how we are doing. We are open to any positive constructive suggestions, policy suggestions, about what more we can do. Indeed, we have already said in several respects that we are doing more. We have heard about the review in July about sea lice regulation and the numbers, which Mr Smith asked about. The consenting review is taking place as well. This is a most dynamic sector. Change is happening rapidly. We have to respond rapidly. I am determined that there shall be sustainable growth, and the sustainable part of that epithet is essential. Not that it should matter, but, like Mr Mason, I am a regular consumer of Scottish salmon. I do follow that product, but it does not take away any of the questions that we legitimately have to look at behind it. Can you comment on that suggestion of a gap, cabinet secretary, that the leadership group replacing the ministerial group for sustainable agriculture left a significant quote, leaving a significant gap in addressing interactions between farmed and wild fish and the wider environment? As I said, we are setting up a group to look at that, mindful of Mr Mason's point earlier on, that the science in this area is not, by any means, clear cut. Therefore, it is appropriate, rather than being a ministerial group, that it is looking at issues where the key determinants are complex evidence. In this case, convener, my feeling, although I am happy to, if the committee came up with a different view, of course we will consider that. My view is that there are roles for ministers in terms of general oversight and policy, but ministers probably are not the best people to chair highly technical groups, where the requirement is to compile a literature review, to analyse it in detail. The reason that Mr Hadfield is co-chairing a group is that, as well as the leading industry, he is a marine scientist. That is horses for courses, convener, and I hope and I want to assure Mr Finnie that we have the right approach, which is an inclusive, open approach. However, using the right people to consider the right topics for analysis, and so much of that is based on science, that plainly a rightly scientist is co-chairing or chairing or being involved in the various groups that we have at the moment considering important environmental matters. Can I bring in Peter and then maybe come back to you, because Peter, I think that you have got a supplementary question. Well, I have. It is about government leadership and what the government can do to help this industry to grow and where it should grow. I think that we all agree that there are some salmon farms that are in the wrong place knowing what we know now. To be fair, some salmon farms have actually shut down where they are in the wrong place because they are in the mouth of salmon rivers or whatever. What I am looking for is a strategic overview from government as to where we see as being the correct place to expand this industry and maybe where it is not the correct place to expand. There has been some work done, and I have a map here that shows what it was done. This is from 2013. The different colours show whether it is a good place to expand or not. It is a good place to expand. That is what was done in 2013, as I say, funded by the Government but done by the Rivers and Fisheries Trust Scotland rafts. Unfortunately, it appears that the funding for this work has now ceased. There is nothing further to update this from, as I said, the data that was produced in 2013. I believe that a strategic overview from government is to where we would like to see more expansion in other areas where it is not so satisfactory. Something like the traffic-like system that they have in Norway that is red, green, if you are in a green area, you can go ahead and expand. If you are in a red area, there is no way you can expand further in that area. A strategic overview of where we would like to see expansion in other areas where maybe we should draw back. Why is not the Government continuing that work? Obviously, some was done, but nothing has happened since 2013. I was thinking that Mr Chapman started off well, and I agreed with much of what he said at the beginning. For example, some salmon and farm locations have been moved precisely for the reasons that Mr Chapman mentioned. A lot of work has been done on that. I think that where I would respectfully disagree is to suggest that that work came to an abrupt halt. That is not the case. I think that Mr Mitchell is about to explain why. I think that the map that you have shown is from a project called MyApp, which was done at that time and it completed its work. That was the outcome and the output, indeed. Within Marine Science Scotland, we have been working on heat maps, which essentially take that work to another level. It is highly complex, and it gives a relative value to particular locations and the opportunity that exists for growth in that particular area, based on a whole range of criteria, including the number of farms that are already there, but many others. Just to touch on that in a slightly broader sense, we definitely see an opportunity through innovation, and I think that that map would evidence the fact that higher energy locations further out give you more opportunity in that respect. I think that Ben Hadfield talked about the fact that marine harvests have been consolidating their sites into bigger sites but more efficient ones in higher energy locations. I think that that is something that we would look to support, but that takes innovation and technology in terms of the equipment and so on, and, indeed, larger smolts. We touched on recirculation hatcheries earlier. Ideally, using bigger smolts in those locations reduces the time in the open sea, which reduces the interaction with wild fish, which I think is crucial, reduces the sea ice burden and reduces the disease risk. There is a virtuous circle that can be introduced, and that is the kind of territory that we want to get into strategically. I look forward to a new map, an updated map along the lines that we have seen here. I think that that sort of work would certainly help the planning process and help the planners to direct the expansion to the correct areas. That is what we all want to see. Yes, that is absolutely the intention that that helps to inform planning around the country. Indeed, we will be part of the consenting review that we look at and how all of that fits together as a jigsaw. Cabinet Secretary, a few of us from this committee—indeed, their clear committee—were fortunate to have to meet with the Norwegian Fisheries Minister. This is a global market, and Norway is clearly a significant competitor. Has the Scottish Government made any assessment of their approach to the salmon industry and any lessons that could be learnt from there? We consider various aspects of the Norwegian industry. It has been a terrific success story, operating at a much higher level of production and doing so sustainably. It is not all one way. We heard, for example, from one of the witnesses that our regulatory framework in respect of the use of treatments was pioneering. We found today that perhaps we have more to learn from Norway in respect of sea-lice reporting and transparency. However, we look at Norway quite a lot in terms of specific aspects. Of course, our scientists are working with their counterparts in Norway. There is also a quadrilateral forum where officials meet and get together from the four big salmon farming nations. Mr Palmer alluded to that joint working in relation to the USA issue, for example, and he alluded to that earlier. As if any raises an important point, I would love to have a trip to Norway, but I am before the committee so often that I am not quite sure when the opportunity will arise, but upon the diary permits, convener, I hope to go to Norway and learn a lot. I think that we should move on from that. I have had to fend off requests from the committee to go to Norway. I am not sure whether I am in a position to do anything about your trips, cabinet secretary, to Norway. I think that we may just leave that one there, because we have a few questions to go. I would like to move to Gail Ross. Thank you, convener. SIPA has written to the Eclear Committee about its proposals for the changes to the depositional zone regulations. Alasdair, you touched on it slightly in your answer to Peter Chapman, but, essentially, the proposal allows fish farms to be bigger, located away from sensitive areas and further away from the coast. What do you see as the main advantages and disadvantages of those proposals? How will those regulations affect Marine Scotland's ability to regulate the health and sea-lice burden of those fish? I think that, in general terms, it is more advantage than disadvantage, which is why we support that kind of development and direction of travel. You do need better technology as far as the fish farms themselves are concerned. Also, in terms of the fish that go in the pens, they have to be bigger and more robust. There are health and safety challenges for the human operatives in higher-energy locations that have to be taken into account. That was mentioned by Ben Hadfield in his evidence session. However, the advantages are that you have a shorter time in the marine environment and a reduced interaction with wild fish. The shorter time in the marine environment that grows out-phase means, in basic terms, less disease and less sea-lice. The Holy Grail is getting to a year or less in the marine environment because there is a moment in time when a lot of those issues accelerate in the second year in the marine. If we can move to something shorter, there are commensurate benefits that allow the kind of sustained expansion that people have talked about. What are the challenges to this move? I think that the biggest challenges are technological and engineering. It is a big engineering challenge to take a structure and to moor it in absolutely open, exposed water. Although the industry is moving to more exposed areas, it is not yet operating in full open water. You are looking at oil industry-style engineering to retain integrity in a fully open environment. Can you make any educated guesses as to a timescale? It is happening now in an incremental way. The cabinet secretary alluded to the small aisles and the growth there, which is a higher energy location, albeit in the lee of some of the islands. If you look at parts of Orkney where fish farming is expanding, I doubt very much that that would have been possible 10 years ago. It is a moving feast. The Norwegians are taking that to a more of an open sea approach, but it is at an incredibly early stage. They are spending inordinate amounts of money on research and development to take them there. I do not think that we have the scale in Scotland to support the level of investment that they are talking about in very strict historical and D terms. It is hundreds of millions of pounds. Thank you. Now, Mike, on the subject that we saved from earlier on. I think that we would all agree, would we not? I do not want to put words in your mouth, but would we not all agree that having an effective regulatory regime is essential to having a successful and quality industry that we all want to see? To give you an example, before I ask a question, we had one witness producer from Shetland who said that when he was setting up his fish farms, there was a lot of regulation. He had five different licences to go through, so there was effective regulation setting up the fish farm. However, we had another witness come to us and say that this industry is self-regulatory, because once it is set up, once it is going, where is the regulation? Do you accept that the complexity of the regulation, including gaps in regulation—different regulators doing their own big job—is a concern? Could it be a constraint on the growth of the industry because we have not got that comprehensive regulatory system that would be a success that everybody wants to see? I think that Mr Rumbles makes a lot of good points. I do not think that he inserted any words in my mouth so far as I can see, but I think that he would make a number of points that I hope are relevant to that. First, we have a regulatory regime that is held in high regard internationally and has a high degree of statutory underpinning. If we did not, I do not think that we would have got the label rouge and the accolades and the premium that I talked about earlier. However, we cannot rest in our laurels, so I am always keen to review and reduce regulatory burden wherever possible, where it is disproportionate and where it does not meet the principles of better regulation, as set out by a better regulation group of which Mr Rumbles will be well aware. There are a number of regulators, and Mr Graham gave evidence last week that it was the number two constraint issue after the challenges that we have rightly focused on today. Equally, we want to make sure that, in terms of transparency and in terms of sea-lice control, we have robust levels of regulation. To move from the four or five-layered approach at the moment to a simpler regime is not a straightforward matter. It is something that may be desirable in practice but is somewhat difficult to achieve. The primary task at the moment is to focus resolutely and forensically on tackling the particular challenges that are occupying rightly our time. However, I am also sympathetic to trying to have a consenting regime that gets the best, which gets sustainable aquaculture and does not take forever to navigate nor involve disproportionate expense and complexity. That is a very fair question, Mr Rumbles. We are certainly keen to see what emerges from the committee's inquiry and the inquiry in forming our future approach, but we have already indicated in several ways what more we are already doing or about to do, which abuts on the regulatory issue. When we had the regulators in, I asked them to particularly seep in response to the environment committee's quite stark criticism, particularly of sepa in this whole process. To be fair to sepa, they said that they were operating within the rules set down by them. I do not think that anybody is talking about setting up a new regulator to regulate the whole industry, but would it not be best to give sepa a different framework to work within? In other words, to give it a lead role in which it can perhaps co-ordinate the other regulators around it, so that we are not talking about—I do not think that we are talking about it and I do not want to pre-empt anybody on the committee, but I do not think that we are talking about recommending a new regulator, but we think that there is a gap there, which will be a constraint to the industry, and we want to see that industry succeed. If you think about it, the planning authorities are there to issue licences and planning permissions. Sepa is there to protect the environment. They have different functions, so it is not an easy matter, but I am instinctively attracted towards a simpler model if that is possible to be achieved, but that is not the main priority for me. It is tackling the challenges. The other thing that I would say is that, in relation to the notion that somehow it is all voluntary at some point, I do not think that that is quite correct. I am thinking about that in the light of having heard some of the previous evidence. It seems to me that regulations exist to make sure that fish farms are located in a suitable location, having regard to the mean characteristics and the perceived impacts on the environment. In some cases, they are refused, of course, to protect the environment, and that is rightly so. The sepa regulations exist in order to monitor good practice, to control good practice, but, of course, the farms themselves have to manage their day-to-day activity themselves, and that respect is voluntary. However, that does not mean that the regulations do not apply. They do, because, for example, if the levels of sea rise exceed a certain level, they have to report them. They also have to continuously observe, implement and ob-temper regulations. There is a duty to do specific things, such as reporting, and there is a duty to abide by good practice, which continually exists. I do not think that it is correct to say that there is a huge swathe of fish farm management that is completely unregulated. It is regulated, but we have to let at some point the managers get on with their job on the basis that they have, as we do, an interest in pursuing the highest standards of sustainability, and they have an economic interest in minimising problems as well. Richard Lylew. The question that I was asking earlier was not in relation to regulation. The Government regulates, local councils regulate, CEPA regulates, HIE regulates, Marine Scotland regulates, Crown Estates can regulate. The point that I was making earlier was that we have not discussed it, not—I would like your view on it, because I did not get the salmon producer's view on it, although someone privately said yes. Why should we not have a sole agency to take the Scottish salmon industry to the next level? Why should we not have one agency, one fit, and that is where they go to? Richard Lylew. I think that, provided the sustainability challenges can be met, it will be possible for the industry to develop and grow. I do not think that the lack of a single agency will prevent that. I do not think that it is a blockage. In theory, it is an attractive idea. I am attracted to it in theory, but in practice, as I pointed out in my last answer, and I hope that I made the point recently clearly, the regulators do different jobs. It might be simpler to have one fresh regulator, but the CEPA does a job across the whole of the environment, and it has a group of experts that assist in that task. I should say that CEPA's remit is a matter for the Cabinet Secretary for the Environment, so it does not fall within my direct purview, so I should perhaps defer to her in that regard. However, although I am attracted, in principle, to the idea of a one-stop shop, I think that, in practice, it would involve dismantling the whole framework of planning and regulation in the country. Rather than pursuing that approach immediately, I think that we should focus on the task in hand of the consenting review, the wild fish interactions and the fish health framework. I am reasonably confident that, as we focus on that in the next 12 months, we will continue to see the improvements that you heard about last week that are coming through from massive investment by our companies. We want to bring up the lowest standard of the best, and we want to continue the investment in science of SAIC, which is absolutely crucial, I think, to Scotland's success story. We also want to try out innovative methods as well, something that we have not perhaps touched on, as they are doing in Norway, and to invest in that, too. However, they are always guided by a robust approach in protecting the environment. I am going to bring in Graham Day. I am sure that he has a small question on that. Thank you. It was just an observation on this issue. On one level, it is quite an attractive idea to reduce the number of regulators. There is, I think, a jurisdictional issue here beyond ministerial portfolios, which is that one of the agencies, the body that regulates the transportation of dead fish, which has attracted a lot of negative publicity in the right way so, is actually a UK Government agency. I think that I am right in saying that. It is the APHA, the Animal Plant and Health Association. I think that Mr Day is quite correct that it has the regulatory role in respect of the transportation issue, so he is right to raise that, as in the context of being an additional or further regulator that Hither 2 we have not mentioned. It is fair to say that we are very much drawing to close much of the evidence that we have taken. One of the things that strikes me is that we have a difficult task as a committee to try and summarise all of this. I think that there is a lot of good will across the board to ensure that the industry itself has the opportunity to grow in the way that we all want it to, but there is clearly a lot of voices out there who want to see it done in a planned, measured, sustainable way that benefits the communities that it operates in, as well as the environment. We have taken a lot of evidence about Norway and we looked to them, I guess, due to their similarities to our industry here, but one of the striking differences about how the Norwegian Government approached this very differently from how it may be looked at now is that it took a much more top-down approach. The fish farming act, the agriculture act, the set-up of the geographic areas that had the traffic light system and, by default, the way that they even issue licences and regulate that industry is very different from how we do it here and they have seen so much more growth over the last decade. What are the key lessons that we could learn or what has the Scottish Government specifically looked at that they may seek to adopt in future policy and how this industry grows? What would the cabinet secretary say to us, as a committee, who are hoping to try and at least summarise some of this in terms of some of the areas that we should be concentrating on to ensure that the Government takes a much bigger role in the industry moving forward? I think that the Government does take a major role in providing leadership and the industry leadership group, which the Scottish Government attended, brings together on a team Scotland basis to public and private sector. One of the advantages of the size of Scotland is that we can bring people into a room and work together with goodwill to devise the best ways to tackle complex problems. That is a way that we use across the board, and rightly so. I think that we have an advantage in that regard. In the consenting review, we will look at the balance between local and national, but we also need to consider our local democracy. We cannot dictate to local planning authorities what they do. I am not sure whether that is being suggested, but I do not think that it is. We also legislate, so that is the top-down approach. I think that we have heard from Mr Allen, which is much of the legislative framework. We also work to promote the food and drink sector vigorously. It is perhaps the fastest-growing sector convener, and salmon is the most important food component in exports. I am personally involved in attending events in Brussels, as I did recently. I am attending trade fairs and shows in order to promote Scottish salmon and high-quality Scottish food and drink. I think that we do a lot, but Mr Greene is correct that there may be opportunities to learn. One of the points that was made earlier, which I thought was quite telling, was that Mr Mitchell said, why have we not got the reporting regime up to date, as it is in Norway? I think that he alluded to an enormous investment that Norway have made. It would be interesting to find out how enormous that investment was. Plainly, there is a resource issue. I should not mention that Norway has got an oil fund, which is worth £1 billion, so it is worth a trillion, is it? Sorry, it is so large. Plainly, it is invested from oil to be able to diversify into other ways, so it makes it easier to find the money to do things such as Mr Mitchell referred to. Going back to specifics, there is a green licence system where the fee is reduced for companies that trial new technologies, whether that is closed containment or some other form of dealing with sea lice or other challenges. That is one example where we can maybe incentivise innovative suggestions and models, innovative for best practice in the environment, or trialling new methods and technologies with a lower fee. I am very keen to adopt that sort of lever in government. Rather than general statements that Norway is brilliant than Scotland is not brilliant or whatever, if the committee can identify specific examples of where you believe that we could learn more from Norway, of course, I am happy to follow that up. That might justify my trip to Norway as well. Jamie, would you like to come back? That leads nicely into my final question. That is a very specific thing that Norway does very differently from here, and that is the issue of licences. Licences are issued and released in tranches both at a fixed price cost but also via an auction process. It generates substantial amounts of revenue in essence to the Norwegian Government, but the majority, the lion's share of that is devolved to the coastal communities that it benefits. Around 80 per cent of the revenue goes to the coastal community municipalities. Has the Scottish Government given a lot of thought to the concept that it may introduce some form of auction processes to those licences? As is the case in Norway, it does not just benefit large operators with deep pockets but also has the ability for smaller, newer producers and operators to participate in those auctions. What thought it has given to how that might be achieved, either via legal means, regulatory means or, indeed, legislation itself? At the convener's behest, a short two-sentence answer, yes, we have considered that only on the Aquaculture Industry Leadership Group, and yes, we shall be considering that further in the course of the consenting review to which I have previously alluded. That draws to the end of our sixth evidence session on the salmon aquaculture inquiry, which comes on top of two evidence sessions taken by the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee and the excellent report that they produced, and also on the visit that the committee undertook to a fish farm and a wild fishery on the west coast. There seems to be some areas of common ground, and I was trying to work them out, that both sides accept that there are hazards with the operations out there, not only to the environment but also to fish. There is an acceptance to manage it. There was an acceptance by the fish farmers that there were some environmental problems and that new science may be the way forward. There seems to be an agreement by both sides that there needs to be the minimisation of the effect on the environment. I would like to quote, if I may, one comment from Ben Hadfield, who has been quoted extensively during this, that we have a moral responsibility as farmers to get it right. I think that that is the obligation that we now face as a committee as we sit down to write our report. We have the moral obligation to consider all the evidence that we have been given, and I think that the evidence that we have been given not only in committee stage but also the written evidence submissions that have been given to us has been quite excellent and very detailed in some cases. The committee would welcome the information from CEPA regarding the sector framework that we are looking forward to receiving. The sooner we have that, the more we will be able to consider it within our report. Indeed, the cabinet secretary mentioned other activities that are going on and that he is leading regarding the fish health framework. If that could form part of our report, it would also allow us to consider the whole industry and the whole issue that we have been considering as a round. Although we have now finished our evidence session, the difficulty now will be producing the report. I am sure that, as a committee, we look forward to that. Thank you, cabinet secretary, for the evidence that you have given today. Thank you, Charles, and Mike and Alastair, for the evidence that you have given. I would now like to suspend the meeting while we allow the witnesses to leave. Thank you. I would now like to reconvene the meeting and move to agenda item 4, which is subordinate legislation. At agenda item 4, the consideration of two negative instruments as detailed on the agenda. I would advise the committee that there have been no motions to a null that have been received in relation to either of these instruments. If I could just make a comment, if I may, before I ask whether the committee wishes to make a recommendation. In the policy notes that go with the CAP SSI, I am disappointed to see that it is still longer than the SSI that it proports to support. I know that there may be reasons for that, but all that I have ever asked is that there are short briefings so that the policy can be understood. I know that that might entail a separate bit of paper to be produced, but to produce a briefing on a paper that is longer than the paper, I have to say, raises the question. Stuart, I know that you want to come in on that, and I will let you come in briefly. I just want to put a slightly different view, because I have just done a quick check. There are five pages in the policy note and seven pages in the SSI. There are 120 lines in the policy note and 240 in the SSI, so I am not sure that, actually, I do not want to detract from the general point that policy notes should be clear, but I think that in this particular case it may be that when we look out—and, by the way, the print size in the policy note is two points larger than the print size in the SSI. I think that there is a general issue that you are absolutely correct, and I support you in raising, but in this particular case, where much of the SSI is inserting into other instruments, which you cannot understand without a policy note that explains what it is that it is being inserted into, that it may not be as justified in this case as it often is in others. I am now going to declare my interests as a farmer in a rural surveyor with 15 years' practice. I have to say that the policy note was difficult for me to understand, and maybe with 15 years' experience and practice it perhaps says something. The only other comment that I would make is that sometimes pages, font size and lines do not actually add up to the same as word count, and I will just leave it there. I think that we need to produce shorter policy notes so that people can understand it. I would therefore like to move straight on to the question, is the committee agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to any of these instruments? It has agreed that the committee will now move into private session.