 Good morning. Welcome to the ninth meeting of 2018 of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform comittee. Before we move to the first item of agenda, I want to remind everyone present to switch off mobile phones and other electronic devices, as the same may affect the broadcasting system. The first item on the agenda is for the committee to consider whether to take items five and six in private. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Agenda item 2 is to take evidence on the conservation of salmon Scotland amendment regulations 2018, SSI 2018-37, from officials who have been involved in its construction. I would like to welcome Simon Dryden, the policy team manager of salmon and recreational fisheries, Keith Main, policy manager of salmon and recreational fisheries, Marine Scotland and Stuart Middlemish, a colleges marine Scotland science freshwater fisheries. We will also, in the course of the next week, welcome Jackie Baill, MSP, who is joining the committee for this item. The gentleman will move on straight on to looking at this issue. Could you explain the methodology that has been used to arrive at the position that you have arrived at? Could you outline whether you believe that it would stand up to peer review? Has it indeed been reviewed independent way? In brief, there are lots of details. It is a quite complex modelling process, but essentially we take the catches provided for each of the rivers in Scotland, use those catches to work out how many salmon are coming back, turn the number of salmon into the number of eggs and compare that to an egg target for a given river. If it is above the egg target, then essentially exploitation or killing is allowed. If it is below the egg target, the river becomes catch and release. That is a very standard process that is used internationally, and that has been peer reviewed in a number of places. It is essentially the same methodology in Norway and Ireland. The general process has been peer reviewed, and it will stand up to peer review. We use Scotland's specific information, rather than taking information from, say, Norway and applying it to Scotland. That bit has not been peer reviewed, but it has been subject to a large amount of scrutiny by going to consultation, discussions pre-consultation with Fisheries Management Scotland, local biologists, local trusts, et cetera. We will continue to consider getting it peer reviewed in the scientific literature, but that takes time and we have a balance between going through that process and making the changes that, through our consultation and various discussions, have been suggested. I hear what you are saying, but would not some system of peer review get you into a position where you might be open to less criticism about the methodology than you have had? Indeed, part of that is down to the speed that we have to get things in place. As I said, the balance between making the changes that have been suggested by other people and updating the methodology and taking the time, pausing peer reviews is not a quick process, but I accept that. It is something that we are actively looking at and seeing how we can do that. On the matter of peer review, apparently at a meeting in October 2017, you were asked by the Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association if Marine Scotland would stand by the current methodology and if you would put your name to a scientific paper on the calculation method and data used, and apparently you replied that you would not at that meeting? I do not have a recollection of saying that. That certainly makes it awkward, because this is a letter that I have received from Gareth Burhill of that association, dated 4 March, among other things. In addition, you use a completely different methodology. You use a Scottish solution, which is based on catch rather than the eggs, rather than the young fish available to measure. We do not use the young fish ability to measure, but the accepted practice is to use adults, that is what they use in Ireland, that is what they use in England and Wales and in Norway. We are doing what is international best practice. We just use data specific to Scotland, so the way that we correct catches to figure out numbers coming back to the river, we do not use the information that they use in Norway, because that is specific to Norway. We use the best information for Scotland. The general method is what is used internationally. As I say, I do not have a recollection of saying that I would not put my name to it. As I have said, we will be looking to peer review this. Of course, I will put my name to it. We are not hiding from it. We go out to speak to people. We have spoken to local and angling associations, we have spoken to biologists, local trust biologists, local boards and so on, so I think that that is the best way. Do you want to come in now? Yes, perhaps if I could give a further example of this balance between going for peer review and developing the model. One of the feedback that we have had from the local biologists is that the current egg requirement target that we use is a national target. Just to get a little bit of detail, what that means is that the model chooses an egg target between 1.1 and 9.8 eggs per square metre of the wetted area is the requirement. We have had constructive feedback to say that not all rivers in Scotland are the same. That range does not apply to all rivers. We have said that we will look at that. What we aspire to do with the model this year is to have a more refined egg target. We are trying to look at the data to see whether that suggests that we can do so. We might find, for example, that on the east coast the range could be larger than on the west coast and have a smaller range. If that were the case that the egg target range was smaller on the west coast, that would reduce the egg requirement on the west coast rivers. What you are doing is taking that range and doing 10,000 iterations and choosing a figure between the range. If you make it smaller, it is better. If we can do that, I think that local biologists would agree with us that we would have improved the model again. However, it takes quite a substantial amount of time and research to make sure that we do that properly. I would be sure to say that this is a work in progress. Absolutely. It is very much a work in progress. We have improved it from the 2006 model each year. We have improved it. There are some calls to say why, if you are improving the model, why do not you not have any grades until you are happy that you have the best possible model? The answer is that we do not think that it is an option to do nothing. All the evidence that we have suggests that the number of adults returning to Scottish rivers is reducing dramatically. The catch numbers tell us that. The anecdotal evidence from this year tells us that the numbers are reducing. We need, we believe, to offer protection, to have a balanced approach for today's anglers, but for anglers in the future. If we allow today's anglers to kill too many salmon, then there might not be any salmon for future anglers in some rivers. Stuart Stevenson, if the question can be answered relatively briefly, the answer would be useful. If it is a long answer, it probably won't be. I am just used to the regime around conservation in the oceans as representing the constituency I do, and the ISIS international collaboration of scientists that has existed for over 100 years and continues to refine its process even after 100 years. I wonder whether there is a quick, pithy way of saying how similar the processes that ISIS and the contributing nations use are to what you are doing in our salmon reverse in terms of scientific approach. Very similar. There is an ISIS working group on salmon. Some of the ideas that we have used to Scotland have come from there, and it has been discussed with international colleagues. Just two brief questions. Where are there gaps in the available data and information? How do you take that into account when classifying rivers? I will answer that on the broad scale. There are lots of data gaps, because we do not have perfect information for each river, but we have to use the best available information. In many cases, we use all Scotland average information. The conversion to go from catches to numbers of fish we have that specifically for a set number of rivers where we do not, we either use all Scotland or if we can find some kind of geographic relationships, how it changes through Scotland, we will use that. That is generally how we and other countries fill in the kind of missing information. Aiden, just to add specifically, we are aware, particularly in relation to the river Enderich, that we have missing catch data, specifically rod catch data. The model does not add in additional salmon catches to try to take account of catches that have not been reported. That would just be, we think, too subjective and too risky to try and design a method to do so. In the case of the river Enderich, we liaise with the Loch Lomond fisheries trust, and we have identified that there is just over 11 kilometres of river that does have fishing on it for which we do not have the data. That is both on both banks, taking into account both banks, and we equate that to be about 21 per cent of the assessed river area. If we were, which we do not think would be a sound basis, but if we were to uplift the catches by 21 per cent to say that they were pro-rata, that would uplift the catches by 24, and that would not have made the river Enderich grade 2. You have raised that particular issue, so let us explore that now, Claudia Beamish. Good morning to you all. In correspondence that has been passed on to me through the constituency MSP Jackie Baillie, with the group, it has been highlighted in a slightly different way to what you have said, Simon. I just want to highlight that. They say that the data is only being collected from a 16 kilometre stretch of the river, despite it being 46 kilometres long, and the club only has rights to that 16 kilometres, and they consider fish counters the only way to accurately define the numbers. They do not consider any improvements that have been made to the way that the data has been captured. I do appreciate that this is a very complex issue. If you could comment on that and also on the fact more generally that fish counters, as I understand it, from the Scottish Government information, that if I have got this right that there is only six in Scotland, that has increased to eight. I wonder if you could shed light on that at all as well. Certainly. It may be easier if we follow this up in writing to explain the differences on the river length, but when we do an assessment, we take into account what is described as the wetted area, the areas in the catchment area that salmon can reside, and what we might call that, the assessment area. That is not all 15 or the river length in the case of the Endric. Then we may have some differences when we say that it is not simply the river length that is more appropriate to count left and right banks, but from the information that we have been given from the Loch Lomond Trust and we sat down with them for a substantial period of time and they mapped out the river and drew it out for us. We are fairly confident that we are talking about 21 per cent of the river area that we do not have catch data. Sorry, that we don't. 21 per cent that we don't. In terms of fish counters, yes, fish counters do remove or decrease the uncertainty in the data and it would be helpful to have more fish counters. However, there is a balance to be struck, because clearly, for example, this year, SIPA is spending around £7 million removing barriers from rivers, which obviously helps the migration of salmon. We are reticent to build a barrier, even though it has a fish pass and counter in it. That would seem to be counter-intuitive. We need to look for places where the barrier cannot be removed and a fish pass and counter can be put in. It is an expensive process and it is not just putting the counter in place. It needs a lot of maintenance, on-going maintenance and analysis, so it is a challenging process. We did find on the river ectric an opportunity this year and we gave some funding and that salmon counter should go live in the next few weeks. That is surely something that volunteers would be only too keen to do in terms of your costs, would not it? Is that something that citizen science could be involved in? We would hope so and we would certainly look to exploit those opportunities. Having been named checked, I will invite Jackie Baillie to come in there. Before I do so, can I invite her to declare any interests that she may have in relation to the instrument? Thank you very much, convener, and my apologies for being held up in traffic. The only interest that I would declare is not that it is a registrable interest, is that, unsurprisingly, Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association is in my constituency. It is a matter of regret, convener, that this is not the first time that we have been here. You will predecessor committee of which you were a member considered this way back in 2016, I believe. Some of the discussion then, as far as I recall, was the lack of an evidence base for the regulations that were brought forward and I regret that we seem to be in a similar position. Can I ask the officials what discussions they had with Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association and when? We have had discussions opening up specifically on the assessment in October this year and have had extensive dialogue with them via the phone, meetings and emails in that period to try to explain how the model is working. For example, I note that, in correspondence that we have received from then, there was a concern that we had not used the same wetted area that we did in 2016 for this assessment and we certainly have. We have not changed the wetted area. We have taken on board the suggestions that we did at that time and have remained consistent in our approach. Knowing the difficulties that there were with the lack of evidence for this stretch of water, why did you wait 18 months, almost a couple of months before you were bringing forward new regulations to engage with the association? That is partly due to a change in personnel. I am not excusing what the Marine Scotland has done, but my team has changed completely. I was unaware of the missing data until it was escalated again and highlighted to me in October last year. Stuart Middlemass was there. I see him quoted in the official report for March 2016. We have been in contact with various people to try and get catch data. It is not something that I deal with myself, but that is an excuse. That has been taken forward to some extent, but not, obviously, successfully. I think that there is an acknowledgement that the Dacia is very clearly incomplete and that you have made assumptions based on a fraction of the river entering. Will that be correct? When it was highlighted in October 2017, we have established through subsequent meetings with the Loch Lomond trust for which we tried to identify—see if they would identify—all the proprietors. The sensitive issue here is that we fully respect and understand that the association and the trust do not feel able to give us the contact details of who the owners are. Despite asking for that, we understand that, because it is a statutory requirement to make a return, that is difficult. They have provided us with some information and that has allowed us to establish that we are missing 21 per cent of the data. They say to us anecdotally that the Loch Lomond fisheries trust that the catches in that area were almost nil negligible, but we do not have returns. Just on Friday last week, one of what the Scottish Government announced was a new Wild Fisheries Governance Fund. That gives the opportunity for both those bodies or other proprietors to make a bid to establish a district salmon fishery board with a grant of up to £50,000. The process of establishing if that, there are a number of potential benefits from so-doing, but one of those is that the process of establishing a board would involve the sheriff making up a role of all the proprietors in a district. That is a potential option and a potential way that we could move forward. I will be in contact with both bodies to revisit with them now that the situation has changed and there is funding available to help if they so wish to move to a board that I will discuss with them. Indeed, that sounds very positive, convener, but the difficulty I have is that this is coming after you want the regulations passed. Surely a Government that prides itself on evidence-based policymaking would gather the evidence first. Can I ask you, as probably a final question because the convener is nodding at me, what are the consequences of making this a category 3 river? Have you thought those through, because Loch Lomond Angling Association spends quite a considerable amount of money employing bailiffs, engaging in conservation projects? If their membership drops, which it will, if this moves through a category 3 river, that will go. Surely that is not the consequence that we would all want to see. Perhaps we should wait for the evidence before moving ahead with this particular river system? We are aware of the risks, in particular, about angling numbers of having rivers at grade 3. However, our 2006 data does not suggest that... It is incomplete in this case. Well, what I would say is that when we look at the grade 3 rivers in 2016 and look at the catches and compare them with grade 2 and 1 rivers, we have not found that the catches have dropped disproportionately. So, if you would have expected that once you put a grade 3 river, you designate a grade 3 river, anglers are going to stop or move elsewhere. You might expect them to catch in those rivers to fall quite considerably, but they have not fallen more than the catches have fallen in grade 1 or 2 rivers, which, if they were being displaced, you might have thought those rivers indeed would go up. Indeed, I see on the River Endrick that in 2016, its catch was 113 salmon. Now, if I may finish, that was when it was a grade 3 river in 2016. That catch is higher than the three preceding years when it did not have a grade. So, if in 2016, when we made it a grade 3, the Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association lost members as they predict they will do this year, we might have expected catches to go down. They did not. They went up, they were only two below the five-year average, which was 115. So, we haven't seen it. A final point I'd say is that the fish counters, where we do have the fish counters, we count the catch upstream of those fish counters, and we have not seen a reduction in a different relationship between the fish going through the counters and the catch. If there was less effort, you would expect the catch rate, the proportion of salmon caught above the fish counters to have reduced, and we simply haven't seen that. Mr Dryden pointed quite properly to a reduction in membership of the Loch Lomond Association. The reduction this time would be significant. I asked you specifically about the impact on local bailiff projects, conservation projects. I'm not sure that you answered that, and I would, of course, be interested in your view, because that would be a consequence that I don't think anybody wants to see, particularly on the basis of data, which is incomplete, where not all proprietors have been identified, not all the catch has been identified, and it doesn't add up to evidence-based policymaking in my book. Clearly, we have a balance to make that, as I say, that if we made rivers that we grade to and killing went on, we believed that that could jeopardise the stock for future anglers and mean that some rivers could become moribund. What we have just announced again on Friday is an additional £500,000 of funding for the wild sector to help with research and activities to address the 12 high-level pressures that we have identified are on salmon stocks. We are putting a lot more funding into the sector this financial year, and that will include activity that will happen in the Loch Lomond catchment area. Claudia Beamish has a question that she wants to ask then, Finlay Carson. Thank you very much, convener. It's to ask—whoever feels appropriate to answer this question—what would be the implications if there was, and I stress the word, if there was a movement, if there was a motion to annul the SSI, and could you clarify? I understand that the current 2016 regulations are not time limited, but the primary legislation may be required to review and update every two years. If there are concerns of the nature that is being highlighted, I am wondering if there was a move to annul what would actually happen. Obviously, as an EU directive, there are protected species, and this committee, of course, has serious concerns about that. We also want to get it right. The regulations that we have at the moment, if there was a motion to annul and that motion was carried, we would revert to the previous years, the 2016 amendment regulations. They are not time limited and they would continue for the 2018 fishing season. That would have implications for a large number of rivers, because we are concentrating for reasons that I understand on the Loch Lomond system and the Endrick water, but there are quite a large number of rivers that will be grade 3 this year. As part of the public consultation that we did in September and October, we have had a lot of representations about that. That was not an entire surprise, to be honest, to a lot of the fishing community, because the stocks of salmon and the catches of salmon have been on a downward trend for quite a while. That is why we think that, in the entirety of the regulations that are currently being considered by the committee, that this is the right way to go. Simply arithmetically, a five-year average is how we model the salmon. We lost 2011, which was a very good year, a very healthy year for salmon catches and brought in 2016, which, if I remember rightly, was something like 63 per cent of the catches of the 2011 figure. There would be potentially wide implications now. That would mean that a lot of rivers, which would be grade 3 this year, might stay at grade 2, for example, and that would allow killing of salmon, whether that is restricted or by local arrangement. There would be management arrangements in place. As to primary legislation, I am not sure that that is the case. The primary legislation and the regulations as a base require an annual review of the position for the, I think it is 17 special areas, the SACs around the country, and we will continue to review them year on year. There is not a requirement to make annual regulations. That is a commitment that I believe that, when the first regulations came into place, it said that we would look for an annual review and, as a result, this is the first set of regulations coming forward. For England, for example, the last week went to a public consultation on similar conservation measures for the 42 principal salmon rivers, and those would be 10-year bylaws with a five-year review. Many of those rivers, under the terms of the consultation of the bylaws, came into place. Many of the rivers in England would go to mandatory catch and release, the equivalent of our grade 3, for a 10-year period, with very little scope for review. What we are doing, as Simon and Stuart have said before me, is that we are continuing to develop and improve our model year on year. There are hard years and this is going to be a hard year for quite the number of river systems, and we understand that, but we will continue to review it. We are continuing to invest in improving the wild fisheries, and hopefully that will start to see some improvements. As part of our annual review process, we will bring forward regulations again. We have already started this year to think about the regulations for 2019. I am really concerned that, when you flag a river as grade 3, it sends a big message out there that people should not come and fish it. Therefore, the fishing effort is reduced, and I think that that is quite clear. There is less fishing effort on grade 3. I certainly, given the choice between grade 1, 2 or 3, would pick grade 1, not because I wanted to kill fish necessarily, but because I wanted to go to a river that was healthy and had a more chance of catching a fish. Does the £500,000 go any way to mitigate the reduction in investment that angling societies and organisations are looking after the health of the rivers? Does that go any way to mitigate the reduction in income that they get, and therefore the investment that they have in those rivers? We have not finalised how we will spend all of the £500,000 in this financial year, but we are liaising with Fisheries Management Scotland to look at giving seed funding to a scheme that would be looking to increase angling participation, particularly based on young anglers. At the same time, when we first introduced the regulations in 2016, we gave £100,000 to FishPowl to help angling clubs, and that funding is still being utilised, and the scheme will run through till June, and FishPowl are hopeful that they can extend it voluntarily with clubs. In conversations with angling clubs that I've been to, that seems to have had a positive impact on where they have taken up the advice—for example, created Facebook pages, et cetera—and seem to have increased the number of visiting anglers that they get. Just on the back of FishPowl, have you done any consultation regarding the effectiveness of FishPowl? My understanding was that FishPowl did a lot of that work anyway, and all that happened was that the Scottish Government offset some of their costs, and it did not actually add anything else to what was already out there. Can I say that FishPowl has built on their existing model and, again, it has continued to develop that model. The Government's investment of £100,000 over the two years has done has helped them to extend their offering, if you like, to modernise it a little and to go out to clubs that have not been engaged and to reverse systems that have not been engaged with FishPowl before. As Simon said, perhaps they have not had the social media or the public-facing presence that FishPowl can offer. Over the course of the two years so far, FishPowl have brought on something over 80, but they are talking to another 40 or so clubs at the moment to bring them on. That gives each club—they can tailor make it—a better and more obvious internet presence. It gives the potential for online booking for people who want to fish. It gives day-by-day and almost hour-by-hour conditions in the water and the number of catches. It has been building on an existing model, but it has brought on clubs that have not had to pay the initial fee, which I think was something like £250 per member to register. For the duration of the project, FishPowl has not been charged in commission on any bookings taken. There has been that offer for two years, and quite a number of clubs have taken it up. Claudia Beamish here. Could we look more generally, please, from yourself as the panel, for some sort of an estimate of the scale of concerns around the regrading of river systems for other systems that have not been highlighted so far? Can you comment on what happened in 2016, when some of us were on the previous committee? It was highlighted that there would be more granularity and locality to the development of the science and in the context of concerns and how those two interface with each other. Can you comment on that, please? I will let Keith go first on the first part of the question. In terms of this year and the level of concern, as we have done in previous years, we had a statutory requirement for a minimum 28-day public consultation. It depends how far you go back, but around this time last year, scientific colleagues were gathering all the data from the previous year, doing the science, doing the 10,000 iteration run on the model and came up with the proposed classifications. We went to public consultation on that in September. We had over 190 responses back. I have to say that more than 50 per cent of them were with regard to the Loch Lomond Association, but those concerns were about 32 river systems. They came back to us. Some were one letter on behalf of the district salmon fishery board, some were a number of letters, and they ranged from fairly short concerns that, as Mr Carson has said, are going to be grade 3 for the first time, to very detailed scientific concerns. This is the third year that we consulted, and some of those are more detailed things. Although I am fairly new to the team, I have been discussed for the previous two lots of regulations. My predecessors spent a lot of time going around Scotland and the clubs and discussing in detail the fact that there are things that need to improve. As we have talked about, we are developing on the model as we go. However, we have responded to some of those concerns. We have not been able to respond to all of them, but, for example, some of the seven systems this year that were previously going to be grade 2, we have decided that they are going to be grade 1, because we have responded to concerns about uncertainties in the way in which the fish use lock systems. As to the granularity, Stuart might be able to... Yes, the first year of regulations was at a district level, so that could involve a number of rivers. We undertook to move that on to a river level, so there was a large process-involved consultation with fisheries to be able to get the statistics at a river level. We have since done that for the past two years, so that is one of the main changes. We have increased granularity in that respect. The other main changes are that we have went out and consulted on the distribution of salmon in a number of areas. We have had over 3,000 changes to the distribution, so the information that we had, which we have taken on board and fed into the models. There was a lot of discussion previously that we could not take into account angling conditions. The models that we have produced have taken into account the flow in the river. Essentially, when it is particularly dry conditions, there is less chance of catching fish, so we take that into account. If it is poor conditions, we account for that in the models as best we can. I will brief a little more about that. More generally, how effort from anglers has been taken into account because I have had that highlighted to me by the Nith and Anon groups that they have concerns about that in relation to the number of anglers being down and that there are some clubs, particularly on grade 3, which contradict the information that you have given us earlier as a panel. How does that relate? Briefly, if there is not much water, it is harder to catch fish. No-one is exactly sure why, but it could be that salmon are moving as much. I am sorry, but I am not being clear. It is about the effort. Is not so much fishing going on because of the grading? We do not regularly collect information on effort, so we cannot put that into any modelling. However, we accept that that is an issue. We have tried to collect effort information in the past, but it has proved quite difficult. We are aware of a number of different groups that are trying to collect effort. Galloway Fisheries Trust has some funding to look at efforts, so we are discussing with them about what could be collected, what is feasible to collect. It is different from where you have an angling club to where you have a private beat. As I said, we are in discussions with them about what can be done and then that is part of a process to figure out how we could use it in the future. We feel that we could go out and say that people must collect that information, and we will then use that next year. As a first step, we did ask when people filled in their catch returns whether they would just let us know whether they fished that month or not. Would that not skew the results, is my question, which has been raised with me by some of the ones along the Solway? It will, but we do not know how. We do not have a handle on that, so we need to collect information on effort so that we can go from anecdotal information to something that we can use. As I said, we asked just the simple question of whether people would fish that month, because that way we could tell a zero catch return from people fishing and they are not being fished. I think that we did not get about 70 per cent of people who filled that just to take box in, so there are difficulties in getting that information, but, as I said, we are working with people like Galway Fisheries Trust in how we do that. In any biological model in which there are inherent uncertainties and effort produce a lot of uncertainties, how much time do you actually spend fishing and how good are you at fishing? What we want to spend a considerable amount of this extra funding doing is looking at what anglers have called for, which is for a complementary juvenile assessment model, and that is where you go into rivers, you select appropriate sample points, you electrofish and you count the numbers of very small juveniles. We have funding in place this year in a system where we can do that across Scotland and then try to build a model to say, well, what would we predict the densities of the small fish should be, the juvenile fish, should be in rivers if they were healthy? There is a methodology for how we do the electrofishing, but we have not finalised the modelling to predict what the densities should be in each of the areas. That is on-going and we are hoping to produce a report next year in 2019 with the first outputs of that. Then we would have two models, both with uncertainties. We would have an adult model and a juvenile model, but at least we would have two models and we could compare the results. We really need to move this on. I am going to allow two very brief supplementaries on this section. First of all, Richard Lyle, then Jackie Baillie. Not in exact science. You are basically telling us that if we do not do this, the anglers of the future will not have any fish to catch. I am genuinely saying that. That is a significant risk. You made one comment, and I will be quick. You made one comment. You actually said when a river was designated down the way or whatever, the catch is actually meant up. It did on the river Endrick. I said that the catch in 2016 was higher than the three previous years. The good news about that was that all of those fish were released, whereas in the previous years some of the fish caught were saved. So we are doing this for conservation? We are absolutely doing this for conservation. Thank you. Roe East survive? That is right. We may well start some research this year to look more closely at rod caught mortalities that were released. At the moment, the model assumes that 10% of those released will die. That is based on some research, some historic research, but we want to check whether that figure remains valid, whether it is too high or too low. We do take a cautionary approach at the moment. Jackie Baillie. I think it's true to say that all rivers are different. You would acknowledge that, and therefore you can't generalise in a way about it, which is why evidence is so important in deciding what you're doing, and there is a lack of it certainly in the lumen system. I wonder whether I could ask you something that I asked in March 2016, which is, have you done an equality impact assessment on this? If so, would you provide that to the committee? The reason that I ask is that 30%, if not 40%, of the members of the Loch Lomond Angling Association have protected characteristics. I have to go and look at that. I know that it was a question that you raised before. I think that the cabinet secretary at the time gave an assurance that an equality impact assessment had been done. I'm not quite sure at what stage that was, but I will check and I'll write it. I would welcome if you've done that this time. Perhaps you could write to the committee head of next week on that, and perhaps also, insofar as you can, provide information on the scale and the natures of the concerns that were expressed by the 32 rivers that you referred to. That would be useful for members to have. Stuart Stevenson. Thank you, convener. I'm one of those ineffective fishermen who contribute to effort, but not to catching. 50 years ago, my brother and I were water billers for 40km of the tape, but not for rod fishing, essentially for commercial netting, so a wee bit different. In my constituency, where we have offshore fishing, the whole approach to the conservation has been that you need to prove that there's enough fish before you're allowed to go and catch them. And the fishermen have suffered over about five years significant constraints on catching in particular cod, but now we have a superabundance of cod, when we will all say. Should it be the case that when you're looking at moving a grading from two to three, that it should be on the precautionary principle whereby you only highly rate a river if you can prove that it would be sustainable to allow fish to be taken and killed from that river? It seems that the discussion so far has been the other way round, where the burden of proof seems to be you have to prove that it goes down in categorisation. Whereas looking at what's happened in whitefish offshore, the proof has been in the other direction. You have to prove that there is a fish to catch before moving it up to catchable status. Which approach are we taking when we're looking in particular from two to three is perhaps the critical one? I think that we are taking approach where we feel that there is sufficient fish to catch. So we're saying that it will only be a grade two where we judge that there's a 60 per cent chance or more over each of a five-year reference period. The average over each of five years is great. Stop you for a second. You said that over 60 per cent gets you into two. Yes, it does. Over 60 per cent gets you. I'll just check to my right to make sure. Over 60 per cent gets you into two. What the model does is says what is the chance of meeting the requirement in each of five years and then averages that takes the mean of the statistic at the percentage given in each of those five years. So we are saying that for a grade two river we believe there is a 60 or greater per cent chance of the egg requirement being met. For a grade one we're saying there's a 80 per cent or more chance of the egg requirement being met. But my fundamental point is the burden of proof is that there will be sufficient fish to catch before a river moves from three up to two and indeed up to one. So if there's an absence of data then we must not authorise the catching of fish from that river given the overall picture that there is in Scotland and in 1968 when I was a water bill if we were worried about declining stock. So it's been a long run issue that continues. That would be our view of course. We are saying that if we have got the river endric to keep coming back to that river if we have got that wrong then we are being more cautious than we need be and the stock should recover more quickly and we move to grade two. If we were less cautious if I might use the word cavalier if we as policy makers were cavalier then we would be jeopardising the populations for future anglers because we would be scared that too many were being killed. Internationally is it the same in other jurisdictions that might be similar and we refer to Ireland, England and Wales etc that they will only sanction catching when the evidence is present and available to say that there's sufficient fish to catch? As my colleagues said I think England are moving to that. They are consulting now on a 10-year bylaw that will say for all bar 10 of their 42 salmon rivers there's mandatory catch and release for 10 years reviewed after five. All friendly. Don't know if it's gonna come. Sorry, my apologies. Take that comparison. It was a legal comparison. Could I refer to my register of interests and fishing therein? Just touching on something that's come up this morning. Am I right in thinking that you're working on the current model in relation to getting more local variable habitats involved? Is that right? Yes, that's right. We're currently working so particularly for the egg requirements. We're working on that at the moment to try and come up with something rather than all Scotland number, which is the only information that we've got just now. We're trying to produce something that will give us regional targets or we can see how we think they vary between rivers. Is there a danger that that won't affect the 2018 gradings but it will play into the 2019 gradings? Is there a danger then that the 2019 gradings may be more accurate than the 2018 gradings? I think hopefully every time we make changes and discuss with stakeholders, get ideas, get more data, it will become more and more accurate. I think what we're doing at the moment is using the best available information in science we have. Information can always be improved, science can always be improved. If we get more counters, for example, that gives us more information, et cetera, et cetera. We hope, and once we bring the complementary approaches that Simon mentioned, it will improve going forward. Could I ask about appeals? Given the, I think, quite startling move from 2017 to 2018 in terms of grade 3 changes, I think you're almost doubling rivers that have been graded 2 to 3, not quite double but almost. There will, I think, be a lot of concerned stakeholders within the general fishing sector. Could you just explain what the appeals process for those stakeholders might be, please? There's not a formal appeal process as such. There's not a statutory appeal. The engagement, if you like, is first and foremost the 28-day consultation period, which I referred to in the autumn. As well as the on-going discussions that we have with individual clubs and district salmon fishery boards and trusts, and through various groups of salmon liaison groups and the local biologists working group that we've had in place as part of developing the model. Last May, when I referred to the fact that the initial results were starting to come out for the set of regulations that are being considered now, the local biologists group, salmon liaison group, I think, had accepted and were happier with the model as it's developed for this set of regulations moving forward. Now, there have been, as I say, 32 river groupings have responded to the consultation, and many of them expressed concerns. That's 32 out of 171 river systems that we consulted on. We'll write to the committee and summarise the issues that are coming out. However, as part of the engagement that the Government may undertake is to say, these are our proposals. Let us have your representations. We will consider them, and we have read every single one of those. We have reported to the cabinet secretary, but the decision is a balance taken on the weight of those objections or those representations against our proposals, if you like. I think that I'm right in saying that I'll be corrected by Jackie Baillie. However, in 2016, the Loch Lomond Association had an objection upheld. Is that right? What happens in that kind of scenario? It's language. We reacted, listened to the feedback that we were given. It wasn't an appeal or something upheld in the situation of river enderick. We were able to establish with their feedback that we could change the wetted area. What happened was that the wetted area for the catchment area was reduced. That means that, obviously, you've got a smaller area, you've got a lower egg requirement because we're talking about eggs at square metres. We were given more information and listened to that information and said, yes, that information that you're giving to us is valid. We'll take that on board. As I said earlier, I think that there might still be—we have kept the same basis for this grading, although I think that the association may feel that we were concerned that we changed it, but we have not. I know the answer to that question, but I want to tease this out on the record. You come at this by basing your decisions on the best available signs, as you put it. Therefore, it's almost impossible for an appeal, given that there's no formal process, to be successful unless those who are complaining about your decision can produce alternative science to challenge it. For all that people have voiced opposition to the decisions that you've taken, I suspect that there's not been one single change made on the back of that. As Keith was saying, we have made seven changes in grading through this consultation period, but essentially I support what you're saying, because what those seven changes were a change in policy decision. What we do is we do an assessment of the populations, taking into account loc areas where there are on a river and the river area. We have a policy approach where, when you include locs, we would grade the river as a two, and when you chose the river only, it was a grade one. We used to say, well, we're going to make it a grade two, but we've said now, no, we accept that we will use the rivers only, and so when there's that situation, we will choose the rivers only grading. But there's been no change. If you graded a river three and you've had objection to that, have there been any instances in this case of that grading being changed at two? No, we haven't so far had additional evidence. Is your right scientific evidence more catch data to say, look, the catch has changed? Had we in the period from October until we laid the regulations, been able to acquire more catch data from the river endrit, we would have taken that into account, and we did make strenuous attempts from October to try and identify those owners and get it from the 21 per cent we were missing. Your two colleagues are wanting to come in very briefly. Can I just say very quickly, there are one or two other changes historically. For example, the Loch Lomond change was as a result of that dialogue and the change to the wetted area. There have been other changes as a result of those sorts of dialogues. For example, in the existing new regulations, there are changes to the outflow points for two rivers. The outflow point is effectively the limit of the river upstream of which we count the fish catches, et cetera. Those changes are made in response to representations that we had last year, and we gave a commitment exceptionally to talk to those three rivers. In two of the three cases, we were able to respond and accepted that the outflow points should change. Although it is not the headline grading of the river as such, it is going to make a difference to the catches and to the fisheries who are going to be able to fish in those rivers for this year. Stuart, we are almost in a very brief way, Richard Lyle. Very briefly, although it did not happen this year, in previous years the Nith was consulted on a grade 3. It came back to us and said that those catch turns were not put in. We went through our records and accepted those. The catches went up, and their grade went up from a 3 to a 2. It has happened previously, and it has not happened in this last year. The 60 to 80 per cent, is that it? Yes. That is what it said previously. Can I read into your record? I am a correct and sane gradant for 2018. 48 rivers have fallen one level, 12 rivers have fallen two levels, five rivers have raised one level, including which I am absolutely pleased about. The river Clyde has went from a 2 to a 1. Am I correct? Mark Ruskell, if I could just ask a couple of quick questions. I was a little bit alarmed earlier on when you were saying that in relation to the Endric there was 11 kilometres where you were unable to get data because you did not know who the riparian owners were. Could you just identify which bit of the Endric that is? Is that the Jackie Baillie bit or is it further up? The Bruce Crawford bit. Sorry, I do not have the details with me. I need to write to the committee to give you the precise areas of that 11 kilometres. Can I just say that I find that quite remarkable that you do not know who the owners are? If you are talking about the Fintree area above Bogside Farm, the vast majority of that area is owned by the Forestry Commission. I am concerned that you do not know who those owners are and that you are unable to contact them and to establish proper data as a result of that. I will just leave that there. Can I ask a further question and that is in relation to the EU Habitats Directive. Can you clarify whether the concerns around the Habitats Directive apply to all of the grade 3 rivers or is it just the rivers that are identified as special areas of conservation? The 17 rivers that are identified as special areas of conservation. It does not apply to the wider rivers. The actions that were taken in 2016, what is your understanding about their sufficiency as mitigation in relation to the Habitats Directive to avoid infraction proceedings? In terms of infraction, my understanding is that, and do not make a right name on this, formal infraction proceedings had not started, but the commission had indicated that it would begin infraction proceedings and that we were conscious of that at the time. I am not off the top of my head entirely familiar with the exact stages, but the process had begun. That is one of the reasons that led us to introduce this set of conservation regulations and other regulations to annual close times. There is a raft of measures of which this is part. As a result of us doing this work, introducing the model and introducing the first set of regulations, the infraction proceedings did not go ahead, and there is no current outstanding infraction threat as it were. That was a good draw. Final question from Finlay Carson. It appears that there needs to be a framework brought in fairly rapidly, but the Scottish Government appears to have kicked the wealth fisheries bill into the long grass. Can you give us any indication when legislation relating to wealth fisheries is going to be brought forward? The situation has not changed from what the cabinet secretary answered to this committee on 31 October. I could repeat that if you like. There will be a place for the wealth fisheries bill in the current parliamentary session, but ministers do not want to pre-empt a future programme for government. It was never intended to be a year one bill, so it is not imminent. We would have expected it to be introduced in around year three potentially, but a lot of the legislative programme is subject to Brexit consequentials, which we are looking at carefully. A final question from John Scott. Can I just ask what use the £700,000 moneys announced on Friday will be put to particularly in one sentence because we are pushed for a time? £200,000 of that is for a wealth fisheries governance fund to help boards to voluntarily merge or new boards to be formed. The £500,000 is yet to be finalised, but a substantial proportion of that will be used for a new national juvenile sampling strategy across 27 regions of Scotland, so that we sample juveniles across the whole of Scotland. Does that suggest that the current system is inadequate then, given that it now needs £500,000 to be spent on it? We will not spend £500,000 on the system, but we do accept that there are inherent uncertainties in any biological model. If we can introduce a juvenile assessment model to sit alongside an adult model, then we can reduce those uncertainties. I think that Claudia Beamish has one final question. I do not know if you are able to comment because I understand that it is a legal case at the moment, but you could perhaps answer the question as to whether there are any others. The Anon common good fund is seeking compensation for loss of the money that has gone in from the local fisheries to support that very good cause. In dialogue, I hope, with Marine Scotland about this, can you comment at all on that? If there is any other compensation, and whether that will relate to the fund that was announced on Friday? It will not relate to the fund that was announced on Friday. At the moment, from April, we will move into the third of three years of compensation being paid to coastal netsmen. We have not paid any compensation to netsmen or anglin clubs, boards within estuaries or within rivers. It does mean that we have not offered any compensation to half-netters. Gentlemen, thank you for your time this morning. There are a number of items that you are undertaking to write back to the committee on if that can be done as quickly as possible and certainly in advance of this time next week. I am going to suspend for two minutes now until we change over the witnesses. Welcome back. The third item on the agenda is to take evidence on the Scottish Crown of State Bill at stage 1, with a particular focus on the Crown of State's agricultural assets. I welcome Gemma Cooper from the National Farmers Union, Tom Katnack from Fockevers Estate, Hugh Hunter from White Hills Estate, Jim Innes from Glenlivet Estate and Brian Shaw from Applegirth Estate. I point out that we are already well behind schedule today. I ask members to ask short, sharp questions. To say to the witnesses, if you do not feel the need to respond to a particular question, then do not. If you feel it has been well enough answered, I think that if we proceed on that basis, we will get through this in an appropriate fashion. I start with a particularly obvious question, but it strikes me from the evidence that we have had that in a general sense, in a stress of the general sense, there will always be individual issues. There is a degree of contentment with the Crown of State and Crown of State Scotland under interim management in terms of the relationship with the tenant farming set-ups. Is that a fair assumption or assessment? We have come from a position where we did not have any communication or any say at all with the old Crown of State. Now, we have established this group and we are getting on very well with the Crown of State Scotland interim management. We like it. There are issues, of course. As ever, Jim Innes, do you wish to concur with that? I agree. I would say that we represent four estates in Scotland—Alpolegarth, White Hills, Llanlevitt and Foghibyr—and we are the community of farmers. The working group that we have got going here is brand estates. We have come on like leaps and bounds. We would like that to be advantageous for both sides going forward. Claudia Beamish Good morning to the panel. Can I tease out what some of the opportunities that are presented by the rural estate are? Some of us have visited some of the tenanted farms and areas in the previous session and saw interesting models such as best practice in the managing of tenants, encouraging young farmers and young entrants—very important, of course—and innovation and environmental wellbeing of the land, or any other issues that you see as going forward as positive and possible. Gemma Cwp? I can answer that. In terms of opportunities in providing best practice, the estate probably gives a unique opportunity in that it is mainly comprised of secure agricultural tenants, but there will be pieces of land that come back. What would be really positive would be in future if the estate had policies that were more in favour of getting young entrants into farming and providing, perhaps, something akin to the starter farm units that is unfortunately commissioned at the moment? I think that the Crown going forward has a really unique role to play in that, and I think that that is a really important opportunity, because at the moment, generally, they are very limited. That long-lows it here. We are quite fortunate in the Crown estate. We can have a like to see the wellbeing of the estate going forward in tenants within it. You know, it has to be healthy, but other long-lows it here is maybe more scrupulous, and it is accommodating. I think that we have an opportunity here to show best practice to other long-lows it here. I think that the new entrants feel like there is a case possibly—it is in the presentation that Gemma put in yesterday—that is possibly a case for a subsidised rent to give him a start-off. I think that if you speak a bit wider, you can have a good rent if you are going forward, you can have sustainability for farmers, you can attend the sector, you can do accountants to be taken in the social infrastructure of where you farm. It is not all about revenue. We have to keep the fabric of these communities intact. If you keep the community intact and farming intact, the whole thing just looks after itself. It is not all about revenue all the time. We have to be careful of how we manage rent reviews going forward. Can I ask what one of the things that I have picked up in dealing with the tenant farmers in the Crown estate is a concern perhaps about the factoring arrangements, that there is not an embedded factor on an estate or even an embedded factor for the whole of the Crown estate that tenants can go to. Very often it is a local land agent or a locally based land agent one day a week, two days a week, whatever. Does that present an opportunity to change that approach and would you welcome such a change? On a number of times, would Bellsbury have their own factor that was always put back that they would rely on savels to give them more experience and more staff? I think that we would be quite keen on an in-house factor, Brian. We have a junior factor that comes around but he, as you say, works two days a week. There is a problem with tenants not being able to converse pretty well. We are only just picking up on emails but, if you want something done, you have to get it logged in and on paperwork. The general tenant will meet up with the guy who comes around and they will agree something and it will be forgotten about. Both sides need to set up a situation where they are quite clear about what they want and whether it can be done. Is that a general held view that an in-house factor would be a step forward? In any case, at that time, we are at the minute and we are going forward with a state where we have a specific factor that comes from savels and I can go on a little bit to say them. Doctor, I think that the factor that we have a group up and running is a half-way house so a tenants working group will meet twice a year with the Crown of State and we will start to involve the factors as well. We are intermediary between. There is accountability creeping in all the time and it is an exponent in nature so that has got to be good. Obviously, we have meetings of our own tenants in each estate and it can be a twice yearly basis just as and when necessary. Up-to-date, it has been pretty well attended, probably 90 per cent attended, and then the feedback from these tenants thinks that this is good. We have never seen this before. So far, it is all positive, I would say. Thank you, convener. Any brief comments on investment and whether there is seen to be a disparity in investment in different tenanted farms and different areas of the Crown of State? I have noted, Jim Innes, that you said that it is not all about revenue and I understand the point that you are making, but is there any concern that there might be showcase areas and others that might lose out a bit? Possibly comment on that. I could not possibly comment on that. I would say that. I farm in the Crown of State and I am going to live it, but I also farm down in Driftland, which is a different type of ownership altogether. It is chalk and cheese in the different landlords. In the Crown of State, in the past, there were the bees' knees with regard to investment in farms. Obviously, the way that costs are crept up with the Crown of State buildings is not the same money going about. However, they are still focused on keeping the farms alive and kicking and replacing buildings as they are needed. It is still an ongoing situation, so it actually works. The investment has—I said, Claudia, that it is not all about money, but at the same time, the farms need to be viable in going forward. It has to be built in a state of up to scratch and all that. If you look at the financial thing going forward, it is actually a pretty good reading. You are trying to grow the state by a portfolio of about £2 million in 18, 19, up to £2 million. The revenue net would be about £1 million. That is all good. However, the rural estate, if you look at the capital, I think that it is about £96 million for this worth, with the revenue from it, it is not very clever, really. That is farming. That is where it is, but it is a key area of the Crown of State portfolio, and it is to be looked after. We have an issue, particularly on Applegas, where it has been taken over. My family have been there before the Crown of State was there, and there has never been any proper maintenance done. Investment now is all left to the tenants, by and large. The Crown of State do not invest in dairies or things like that, but it is maintenance that we are looking at now. We must have an audit done. I got an email from Andy Wells last night, and he says, oh yes, we are going to do an audit. If they do not know what the liabilities are, they cannot do a budget. There are so many underlying things that need to be done that have happened over the years. Not this lot's problem, which is their problem now, but it has come from what has happened before. An audit must be done. We have got the opportunity as tenants to do an amnesty, whereas we are putting forward our tenant investment. Alongside that, I believe—and I think that we all believe—the landlord should be understanding what his problems are, because he needs to have money laid aside to fix the lead pipes that are still in the fallen downsheds. Claudia Beamish's question. There is a sense that there is an inconsistency in approach in terms of investment across the forest states. Gemma Cooper, do you want to come in on that? I agree. In general, the tenants are really proud to be Crown Estate tenants. That is quite refreshing in agricultural tenants generally. There probably is a disparity in what has gone previously, particularly when Brian has mentioned the estate in Dunfeas and Galloway, Apogwrth. Possibly part of it is also about transparency, because there has not been a lot of transparency up until now. It is good to see those themes in the bill as it stands at the moment, because the tenants do not have a lot of input and a lot of understanding as to how decisions are made. I think that possibly a bit more information would really help in terms of how they felt about investment going forward and the confidence that they have in that. I think that Claudia Beamish has touched on the question, so I will come with it now, but I was really interested in that question of anodat. Does the Crown Estate—I am assuming that they have not had anodat—any large organisation will take a local authority? They basically would know the condition of other buildings and whatever. Are we saying that that does not exist with the Crown Estate? Absolutely. It is only when some tenant comes and says, I have a problem and the roof has fallen in, that that gets put forward into the budget. There are many underlying problems that tenants are quite honestly frightened to go to them about, because they think that they cannot get some houses that are needing quite a lot of work. An audit is not a difficult thing. A crazy thing that they have done recently is a drive-by-audit. I do not understand this. There is maybe some technical, but the factor phoned me up. He says, I am driving past your farm very slowly. He says, if you wonder what I am doing, he says I am doing a drive-by-audit. I said, you are a curb crawler. How can they value my farm or whatever part they are, and the snow was on the ground as well? That was one of the questions that I was going to ask was the benefits of the Crown Estate in terms of investment and whether there was cross investment that targeted areas the greatest need. Is that the case, or is it not the case? I assume that if the Crown Estate does not know the condition of their properties, then there is a serious issue there. My name is Simon. It is up in your neck. I think that Brian Dun, in the apple garden, has been a disadvantage for long enough. It is up in your neck, if it is for a person, you could say that it is a show piece of the thing. We have been looked after quite well. The agents do come round and look at things, and they say, if it is large consent in the past six months period, can there be any issues, Jim? Can there be any issues that you need to raise with regard to the fact that we have the budget going forward, repairs, et cetera, et cetera? I reckon that it has sharpened up the rock already. I would not be too worried just yet, but Brian is quite right that we need this order to take place just to see where you guys are at with regard to the finances of the rural estate. We need how much is needed to be spent going forward to correct things. Opalgarth in Afia, and that is probably needed more money spent on it in Foghubar's Orgly and Llywodrae. As I have experienced with the landlord, it is chock and cheese, but we need to keep that momentum going. The Crown Estate should be an example of best practice, as regards landlords and input and all the rest of it. If you put the money in, you will get deliverance. Farmers are healthy, if the portfolio is healthy, the buildings are all the rest of it. The whole community is healthy. If you look at the environment round about, it all filters back. We look after farmers and the whole thing flows and keeps them intact. Hugh Hunter I am on Whitehill Estate, and that was really bought as an investment. The Crown have had a lot of money. We have had opencast coal mining, but it fell when Scottish coal went bust, when it was getting put back. The new interim committees had to pick up the pieces and put them re-establishing some of my farm, but the rest of the estate has a quarry, and they have been able to sell land for housing behind Groswell, not far from here. There are only three or four of us left on the estate, so we are out of the way from all the rest of them. I suppose that we are getting managed from them freest now, so we are a wee bit like Brian. They are not coming up to Whitehill as much to see what is needed and done, and what have you. The fact that we are a working group and have regular meetings with the management agents in Arnie Wales and Co. That has got to be good going forward, because we can actually tease out that negative aspect within the portfolio of the rural estate and try to get some more action going forward. Richard Lyle I think that the assets, particularly Crown Estate Scotland, are responsible for managing 37,000 hectares of rural land with agricultural tenancies, residential, etc. In your opinion, what are the wider benefits for rural Scotland of Crown Estate Scotland continuing to hold on to and effectively manage those assets? As I said before, it is self-explanatory. If you manage those assets, especially rural estate effectively, it pays dividends right down the line. Social infrastructures, environmental balance, and the whole thing. Richard Lyle Employment? Richard Lyle Employment as well. The whole thing is related to degree. Post-Brexit could be negative, so it is all relevant going forward. It is a tricky question really going forward. So, can Brexit be a hidden area? Can we do it if all happens with that? Richard Lyle I do not think that anybody does. Richard Lyle I think that there are huge benefits to retaining it, as it is. Those guys have been really clear from day one that, as I said, they are proud to be tenants and they think that this is a showcase. I think that this could be a showcase for Scotland if it is done right. The positive could be built on in terms of for the agricultural tenants. This estate has a huge number of secure tenancies, a huge number of what are left in Scotland now. They provide opportunities and they provide long-term security. Just in relation to wider food security for Scotland, those guys are a massive part of the fabric of the economics of those rural areas. Anything going forward, the emphasis has got to be on stability for them, particularly as it has been mentioned with the future of subsidy support and Brexit and all those sorts of things. I think that, to summarise, it seems to have been functioning generally quite well, and I have not seen any huge compelling case for splitting it up. Richard Lyle You mentioned there only a small question, convener. You mentioned you are meeting them twice a year. Should you not be meeting them every month or four times a year to fix out the problems that Mr Shaw said earlier? Richard Lyle It could be, but I think that it started off with no meetings at all at one point. Then I got one per annum, now it's two per annum. Push for more? Richard Lyle You could push for more, right? Richard Lyle No, you push for more. Richard Lyle We push for more, right? Richard Lyle Thank you. In agreement with that point. Richard Lyle That's right. There are certain things coming up. They told us, Andy Wells said in his email, that they are now, after our suggestion, going to do this audit or so we believe, but they would get in touch with this once it was organised. That's not the way to go about it. We need to help them to help to organise it so that the job is done correctly and it's not top down. We are now part of this infrastructure and we want to be, we are buried in the church yard, so we want to be part of the decision making. Andy Wight I don't know what Brian is saying there. If you look at the Smith commission and what recommendations are coming from there, it's devolving more assets down the line. Although we are quite clear about it, we want the rule of states to be a national perspective, but the fact that we are involved in this now, we are halfway who's between the board, you can imagine that the Government seems to be buying into that concept, is delivering basically what the Smith commission was suggesting to a degree, so I think it should be built on as time goes on and expanded, if you like, and to suggest that you are making regards for meetings problem, but I don't think necessarily, it's the same as having meetings with our fellow tenants, you don't have meetings for meetings' sake because that's the easiest way not to have a good attendance. Once you get priorities coming to the floor, or something to discuss like your consultations and stuff like that, I say yesterday there's a new one out there's regard to pilot schemes and stuff like that, that's why you have a meeting, can you get out? So you should be pushing for more, that's my thing? I agree with you, not for meetings' sake, but for some substance to speak about. You've opened the door to another subject, Finlay Carson. Chairman, you mentioned the possibility of this bill to empower communities to manage the rural asset more. What is the view of the panel about more of the management of the rural assets being carried out or being devolved to local authorities or other public authorities or community organisations? When you think about that, is it something that maybe Brian Shaw down in Apple Garth, the community, you could form a community group to seek to manage assets when there's been issues with factory in the past? Quite honestly, I've got enough job management in my own business, but at this level it's fine, and we can get some cohesion with the tenants, but we simply want to help the thing to run smoothly. We don't want to take over and it works pretty darn good the way it is. Quite obvious way, but you shut them up if you want to. We didn't really want to see the devolved into councils forever. If you take Murray Council, for example, and they've got enough job, run their own show, can they go deep to the local financial aid? I shouldn't have seen that because obviously it's been packed up on like that, but the rural estate that we represent is a big portfolio. You need expertise at doing that, and expertise lies at Bell's brain, in my opinion. I've been doing it for years and I wouldn't say we should be diverting from the original format and the slightest. As regards community involvement, it's a bit the same. You can have to get the money or the expertise to dip the toe in the water on it. There is maybe certain avenues like the big trails or something like that that you can take on, but as regards the rural farming sector, we see it as a no-no. What about the interaction with the wider community around these estates? It isn't just about agricultural tenancies. You have an engagement with Tom and Toe, you've got the village there, you've got other things going on. How do you see the tenants and the tenancies through the Crown Estate engaging better or can it be better with the wider local communities? We've created some walks, trails, and there was subsidy to help to put that in place. One of the benefits of that is that we can regulate where the community comes to rather than just walking willy nilly everywhere. We make it an interesting walk alongside a river bank and the like. Unfortunately, the fishings, we have nothing to do with them, they're all let out and owned by different people, but I'm meeting with RSPB tomorrow to do work with trying to save the tree sparrow or the house sparrow or something. So there is a wish from people to talk to us and we respond. In the last 10 years plus, you can, especially when you live it, there have been instrumental in big trails, walks, the whole thing. It's got a way ahead of the game. Other states don't do that. There is community involvement for that. We were meeting with the community association in December time, which was last year. It was far back and that was Richard Locky's time. The farmers that they see and the community associations come in and was all speaking from the same hymn sheet. John Scott, what are you on? Thank you. I'll convene and declare an interest as a member of the NFU, although not a tenant farmer. In the NFU submission at section 9, it says that the group is not in favour of too much local community and local authority involvement and believes that the estate is best served by retention of the national management structure where possible. Does that absolutely echo your views? Essentially, the structure as is should it remain with, of course, the enhancement that you are talking about, developing community, stronger community links. Would that encapsulate your position? Do you want to answer that? I think that we've said or already want to all to stay together. I think that the community our situation at Whitehill is that the community has been given an old steadying to develop that and there is the chance for the community to use it. However, I think that the Bellsbury team will have to get better at publicising what they do with the local communities as well. I don't think that there's a lot of things that have been seen. We have trails and things in some of the woods, and I think that they need to be better publicised in that. Felly Carson, you finish that line of questions. Ruling out the opportunity to come together as a group of tenants to form a community group that could then provide fact and services to tenants in Applegarth, for example. That's the next step, I guess. We've got a group in Applegarth and we meet and we deal with things, but the farmers are farmers and they don't want to get too far spread out. Concentrate on what they're doing themselves, but if there is some way we could help, let's hear about it. Thanks very much. I just wanted to ask a question about the farm sales framework in terms of how decisions are made around the sale and re-letting of farms in the estates. The new bill sets a requirement on Crown Estate Scotland to maintain and enhance the value of the estate and the return obtained from it. At the moment, when it comes to re-letting, my understanding is that unless there is a clear justification for an alternative, a unit will always be re-let for agricultural use and the same goes for sales. Any thoughts on whether the new requirements in the bill might have an impact on the farm sales framework as it currently stands? My opinion is that it should be left the way it is just now, because there will be circumstances that want to sell a farm and I think it works well the way it is just now. I think that if you block that, you're kind of shutting that off when it might be kind of happening again once the bill is through. So I'd prefer if it was left status quo as it is at the minute in terms of re-letting and sales for agriculture. As long as the money is being obviously re-invested into something else, not to sell a farm and the money for a sale has to be maintained somewhere else in myneta, in a higher income for the crown estate. For a bring jam, I can ask what about the re-letting of farms that become available? Should there be a presumption in favour of re-letting a unit to exist in crown estate farmers to perhaps, whether you break up the unit or not, to help strengthen the tendencies that are there, as opposed to perhaps letting it accept the point about new entrants, but to someone who's maybe farming already outwith the crown estate? Does Andy have any views on that? Bec me to say yes, but actually we've discussed this. Crown estate have recently let a farm on one of the northern estates and actually the tenants here are quite keen that what they call empire building doesn't happen. They see anything that comes vacant as more of an opportunity potentially for the younger guys coming in. I don't think it's the sort of thing that you need to have a really inflexible policy on, because that's one thing in all of this. Going back to Kate's question about the framework that's within the bill, what's become apparent during discussions is that this is a really massive estate. It's a hugely diverse portfolio. There's stuff coming in and there's stuff going out. The ability to maintain that is crucial to its long-term survival. As I said, you would expect me to say yes, but we've discussed this and they're quite keen that it doesn't always happen like that. Can I just push this question if it would be good to get clarity? Would there be a preference within all that you've said that the letting of a unit that becomes available to the next generation would be, for example, to the new entrants who are already involved in the crown estate, the sons or daughters of existing farmers who want to branch out themselves, or would you still want it to be done on a wider basis? I mean, I think there's probably pros and cons to that approach, because given that the majority of the tenancies or 91-ac secure tenancies, then those individuals would likely inherit or be able to have farms assigned to them anyway, so you'd have to question whether that was the right route. Eventually. I can, in the first commission, create starter farms. A lot of starter farms are 10-year leases, and at some point they come to an end. I think that a crown estate could be a role model and create an opportunity for guys moving up the ladder. By the same token, the way that you suggested that you can, for farmers, sun branch out with your own structure, you can take on farms. I think that that's got to be a good thing, because it needs to be a wrong ladder system, because that guy's completely 10-year leases. If there's no farms available, can they're dead and buried? You know, they can't get nowhere, but as regards rental revenue, I know, Kate, you mentioned the fact of it growing the revenue in the state. But due account has to be taken about sustainability and farms going forward, and I think any farms that's let can help by building just a non-starter for me. But the revenue side of it and the rents, it's actually achieved. It's not about maximum revenue, because all too often, sometimes in the past, they go for big bucks, and three years during a line of 10, please, poverty, and he says, this is new working. Can I need a rent review and a rent reduction to make it viable? So I think as regards, you can, new farms coming on the scene for let, you can, it has to be a rigorous plan, can a forward plan of five years, say, and it has to be financially accountable. So it can't sustain the rent being offered. So you don't have this three years time plan poverty thing. It has to be sustainable, but that maybe doesn't necessarily grow the state. You can as regards revenue, because you can, it's always with itself, you know? You can't have it both ways. Okay, right, thank you for that. Mark Ruskell. Yeah, thanks. Leading on from that, we took evidence from the government bill team a couple of weeks ago around the proportion of net revenue that can be retained by asset managers and then reinvested back into estates. The figure of 9% was mentioned, which seems to be an historic figure based on treasury rules. I probably know the answer to this question already, but is 9% enough and how does a variation of that figure affect the motivations of managers? I guess if we have the audit done, we'll know. I believe initially on the part of world I come from, it will need more than that for a few years. They're already selling off three or four farms recently and that seems to be where the revenue that is coming from to afford the keeping up of the estate. If that's to be, that's to be, but the 9% I wouldn't have a clue about, but it just needs to be enough to do what is needed to keep the thing tenable. Can I cross subsidise an element that comes into the portfolio? In some parts the state might be doing so well. If you grow the capital fund, the 9% is too high and there's not enough money left to get to divert, cross subsidise or maintain the state portfolio. But to come back on one specific point as regards farm sales, it's needed at the moment as regards revenue to keep the thing mobile going forward. We don't agree with farms being sold in a central part of our rural estate because it starts off as one being sold maybe in the centre part and then there's two and then you get fragmentation creeping in and I don't think that's a good idea in the slightest. Maybe as regards farm sales it's just to be really really analysing fool like in maybe one corner somewhere could be sold off, you know so it doesn't have fragmented estate. But I think the same token, any sales or purchases that should be used in groups like this get to consult with, you can. Maybe I'm being a bit self-important as regards a group here like, but it's all I do with accountability going forward and making the right decisions, given for the benefit of the whole portfolio. Yeah, I mean just go back to something that Brian Shaw mentioned just a second ago. I think you would accept that what you as tenant farmers might deem as being necessary by way of repairs and restoration work, the Crown Estate might hold a different view over. So how would you envisage compromising mediation working to come to a position that was agreed upon? Because that inevitably there'll be differences of opinion. So how would that work in practice, Brian Shaw? Let's start by having the houses all to be up to a reasonable standard. At the minute the tenancy agricultural laws I think do not require farm houses to be up to the lettable standard. I think that's going to come so I think that's it's heading in that direction. But there are some houses out there that are really not very good. And as far as maintenance and bring it up to standard well then I think it'll be quite obvious what's been stopping it, retarding it at the minute is the fact that there's not been enough money in the budget. Well this budget is we would do is derisory for a start and it is not we don't know where it comes from. I think it was just the same as last year but it's only what some of the tenants verbally say oh yes we'll do that. But a lot more tenants the owners has to come back to us to really tell the bosses what the situation is and then they can then afford in a timely manner the putting right of the estate. The investment order is totally relevant at this juncture. Get to see if we are going financially going forward. Jim Cooper. Yeah just to build on what Jim said. They're calling a nod that I'm calling a record of condition but I think if there was some sort of this is a chance to start afresh to my mind and carrying out records of condition and all of the holdings I think would be really useful could then be followed by an agreed schedule of works and then that would obviously tie in with the estate budgets. I think with regards to wider industry codes there's a lot of work being done by the tenant firing commissioner which is about behaviour and I think that underpins discussions already so I don't I don't see this necessarily as being a source of conflict I think it can just be a discussion but the tenants need information that they don't have currently to be able to be involved in the process. Mark Ruskell. Just going back to the points around the audit and how that might function I mean will the audit look at the condition of existing assets or will it look at the economic potential of those assets so if you've got a farmhouse or you know abandoned building on your estate which on your farm which could be used for bed and breakfast but it would need substantial investment to achieve that is that something which an audit would pick up or would it just merely be looking at whether that building is falling down or not and whether it can be retained as it is abandoned? Certainly will the picture will be painted and then a decision has to be taken what has to happen sometimes they make buildings redundant and maybe knock a bit off your rent sometimes they decide to well I've had a building renewed but there are leases out there that's a problem that the Crown Estate has all landlords and tenants have there is a lease which has to be adhered to and so if there's a building falling down that you're paying rent for then it should be replaced whether it's replaced in its traditional method manner is a moot point but in the cases that I've had buildings have worn out I pointed out to the landlord that these and paying rent for them are no good to me and they have put up something substantial they've done good but quite a few tenants are not able to push this enough and if there was a review as Gemma says then we'd all be starting from a level base and some people who are behind sadly at the moment would get up to up to speed. In houses it's maybe not a derelict situation it's not being used you make the point that can be diversification avenue there for the tenants and can co-funded by the landlord by the Crown you know that is food for thought going forward but at the moment photography happens if a house has not been used and it's a sad old state can photography happens if it's in a prime location or a decent kind of sport can they'll take the opportunity to sell that site sell that house can then grow the revenue you know just a capital budget you know so that there's two ways of looking at it you know okay but going forward with regards bed and breakfast and stuff like that I think in Glenliffe it's maybe overdone already that you can in regards a whole day accommodation another year's it could be a useful secondary income again to bolster and any of these avenues is useful going forward post-Brexit if subsize isn't on a decline you know okay thank you for that don't come in thank you can i refer to farming in my register of interests how do you think tenant farmers should be represented and involved in the decision making processes of the crown estate in this new new environment you how would you like to to be involved is it the status quo is it more consultation with you as tenant farmers is it a voice on on the kind of management structure what do you see is the best way I think this forum at the way of a couple of tenants from each estate I think going forward is really essential because I think we can take forward we can speak to the tenants we can take it forward to either the interim board or direct the government if needed I think so we're kind of bell spray everybody kind of in a circle but obviously got to speaking around the table for what comes the good decisions you can give an evidence can it just shows you how far we've come and the point that you're making that's the way we would like to see it go forward we would like this group can we are the community the farming community it takes the smith commission box they're going forward and we'd like to see that and expand in nature with regard to decision making going forward the convener touched on this and it's an interesting scenario but if if there was a dispute between a tenant farmer and the crown estate as landlord do you think that kind of system would nip nip nip that in the bud do you think that would help mediate problems okay right thank you john scott thanks very much convener and in light of the above what are your views on the bill itself for example are additional safeguards or commitments needed in in some areas or not you many of you have said that you quite like the state of school you've all said that it is a privilege to be tenants of the crown estate so you are already examples of good practice but how do you see improvements being made possibly no improvements Brian Shaw you say safeguards in the bill we're moving in that direction the bill is providing a big improvement for us we have seen nothing in the bill or nothing lacking in the bill that we're looking for so we believe that we're heading in the right direction and we're not propelling the ship we hope to steer it on that optimistic note i think that's where we might want to finish can i thank you very much for your time i think that that's been very useful and very constructive i'm going to suspend now for five minutes till we change witnesses for the next session thank you welcome back the fourth item on the agenda is to take evidence on the UK withdrawal from the european union legal continuity scotland bill can i welcome michael russell minister for uk negotiations on scotland's place in europe and his officials kate tomson mcdermott lou mcbratt look mcbrattney and hilena yansin good morning everyone um mark ruskell can you kick us off yes thank you by convener and uh good morning to minister and officials um i'd like to pick up really where the finance and constitution committee left off last week in its scrutiny of the issue of where environmental principles and animal sentience principles sit um in relation to this continuity bill and i believe that professor page last week in the committee expressed the view that these EU principles would not be covered by the idea of the general principles of EU law that are within the continuity bill as it stands so i wanted to ask you minister for your reflections on professor page's evidence on that and what your ambitions are now in relation to taking forward these principles uh into law or not very quickly you get to the heart of of the issue around environmental principles on this bill and if you give me a community i just want to tease this out a bit i've i've written to the committee and responded to your question but i think it's quite important we know what we're talking about particularly because later today we will consider amendments to the bill some of which mr ruskell has one uh codiwbimish has one there are amendments to this bill a little more from tavish scott i think that deal with these issues so if you'll give me a moment just to tease this out let's let's try to put to one side the issue of animal sentience not because i don't believe it to be necessary but because it is well covered in scott's law and indeed the first legislation that was in 1912 the the protection of animal scotland act 1912 passed when asquith was prime minister and mckinnon wood was the secretary of state for scotland and that dealt with it prevented in to actions to infuriate or terrify any animal or cause any unnecessary suffering because animal sentience is understood and is not at all a question in here at all and there has been continued legislation in that including legislation in 2006 so that is legislation exists and keen as i am on european matters not every principle derives from european law there are principles that exist in the law in scotland so the question is what does this bill do and what other things need to be done to protect environmental principles and i think it's important that we look at that carefully the first issue is what does this bill do is this bill takes into our law laws that over the last 46 years laws and regulations i should say over the last 46 years that have come from europe of which we've been apart we've been apart in making those and and those laws and regulations come into our law so any law or regulation that is respects or is based upon the general principles or upon the guiding principles and it's important to recognise those two things because there are general principles which allow action by individuals and there are guiding principles that have led to the creation of the law and underpin it at any legislation or regulation which they have been involved will automatically continue to apply because they've been taken back in so in terms of where we are now what this law does this bill does it says that's all going to be there it's going to be ours and it's going to continue to affect us so we if we are moderately content with the situation presently and things can always be improved then we should be moderately content with the situations that will exist after uh brexit day presuming brexit happens i just want to make that point because i still don't think it's inevitability and i think we should always make that point so what happens beyond that date well there are two issues that we would then address uh well three actually the first is what this bill can do about that and the answer is nothing this bill is not about changing policy after exit date it is about making sure that what we have now continues to be part of what we will go forward with so then what what would happen and what would take place well we could look at it in two different ways and both are useful to us the first of which is to say that the keeping pace power in the bill at section 13 which is subject to a great deal of discussion and many amendments and you know i'll be giving commitments later this day to to ensure the scrutiny of that is stepped up and the way in which it operates is it is sharper because i believe that those amendments are useful and informative and will help to make it a better bill but i still think that keeping pace power is important and the keeping pace power in itself will allow us to continue to do things that are underpinned both by the guiding principles and observe the general principles and if i might give an example of where the keeping pace powers come useful to us it would be for example in the area of aquaculture i know it's not the committee's direct responsibility in the area of aquaculture where you would have a list of diseases of fish that were diseases that required action by the Scottish Government that list would change it does change from time to time as new diseases are identified or become prevalent that's an automatic change within European legislation but unless we have a keeping pace power we'd have to go through a lot of primary hoops in order to put that in place so the keeping pace power allows us to do that and that guides where we are so that's that's one way that we could do it but finally is there more we could do and of course i entirely come agree with the cabinet secretary Rosanna Cunningham's view on this and she wrote to this committee on the 31st of January and in her letter i think at section 2 she talks about ongoing consideration of how best these aims that is the aims of ensuring that we carry through not just a letter of environmental law but also its spirit precisely the point you're making how do we take these forward and she says is ongoing consideration so are there things that we should still do in this bill to allow it to happen now we cannot and i think it's quite clear we cannot change European law we cannot improve European law we could keep pace with European law but we should also consider if there's other other legislative routes that are going to arise over the next year and a half to two years that we could use prior to Brexit to do things with this and i think that's the area which we should now discuss and consult on and i think that's an area which you'll all be looking at as we move from stage two to stage three whether we could make a commitment in legislation to make sure that that matter is considered in terms of future legislation so i'm sorry for the lengthy explanation but i think it is a very detailed area i i entirely concur with the view that we want to ensure that we are doing these things this is not the bill in which we should do them there are things in this bill that will allow them to happen and also to go on happening we should recognise those and we should also look for ways for to ensure that as legislation develops as regulation develops in this field these are consulted on and made more firm that's where i think we should be well thanks for that lengthy response i mean i hear what you say minister in particular by animal sentience however in the letter that you sent to the committee you do acknowledge that the current provisions that we have over animal sentience the principles need to be further strengthened and in fact i understand that there's currently a negotiation between the Scottish Government and the Westminster Government in relation to the UK animal welfare and sentencing bill um so it clearly is a you're clear we're not complete in terms of our you know respect for animal sentience in the welfare provisions that arise from that however the the bill which is currently under consideration at Westminster by the the AFRA committee there um has deemed that the provisions over animal welfare and sentience that are currently in that UK bill are insufficient so there don't seem to be any obvious easy solutions to enshrining animal sentience in our legislation that appear on the horizon in the immediate future so i'm still at a loss to understand why the government wouldn't want to enshrine that principle within this bill rather than relying on a on a piece of legislation which is being tested to destruction Westminster is being found found wanting at this point because this bill cannot do what you wish it to do this bill cannot change the existing law it can take into into our law those things that presently exist but it cannot change those things that's not what this bill exists to do and if we were to to write the bill in that way then it would be a different bill but i don't share the member's gloomy view of what can and can be done you know i know that the cabinet secretary for example is in active discussion with the UK government about the ways in which this parliament might be persuaded to give legislative consent to that bill were that bill to improve so i think there are things that can be done there are MPs at Westminster who wish this situation to improve and this committee can certainly say that it wishes to improve in that way the only point i'm making is i'm not indicating that i'm content i'm indicating it is not only a principle of european law it is also a principle of scots law but i'm also indicating the ways in which we can and can't do things in this bill and i'm indicating the ways in which we can take it forward by a variety of other actions thank you convener and good morning to you cabinet secretary and to your officials could i push this little further with you i know it's been quite detailed but it is very important obviously in view of the fact not least that i understand it's always quoted the 80 percent of our laws in scotland which relates to the environment do come from the EU i'm sorry if that's not completely accurate but that that is what is always bandied around what my particular concern is well first of all a point of clarification if you would cabinet secretary about what other legislative routes you're referring to in relation to the opportunities to make this all more secure and if that would be put on the face of the bill so that would be a point of clarification first please well there are many routes that you know this committee and the cabinet secretary can and will take over the next 18 months you know some of them are you i've indicated in terms of new legislation here and in Westminster for example there's consultation taking place in environmental governance i believe those are issued or there is there are issues of environmental governance being examined if that leads to legislation as it may well lead to legislation that is legislation which is could be enshrined i'm not i'm not indicating that i'm you know in any sense against clarifying and moving this issue forward i'm indicating what this bill does and what it doesn't do and i'm trying to make sure that there's a recognition of what it does which is important which is all the things that presently exist are coming into scott's law are coming into our law so we'll be enshrined in there and there is a keeping pace power to for certain areas for the decision of the committee and for the decision of recommendation of the of the ministers but there is all there will also be opportunities to take this issue forward in other legislation and that is the right thing to do it cannot be taken forward in this legislation because frankly we can't change european law in this legislation that is neither what the legislation says how to do nor would it be something that we had the power to do i mean i know that there have been criticisms of this bill about taking powers that some members believe it doesn't have i believe this bar this bill it takes those powers forward entirely in a legitimate fashion but i wouldn't want to open the door of taking it forward in a way that couldn't be done right sorry i'm sorry i can't say something about it too do you mind please gay thanks i just wondered if it'd be helpful obviously um mr rossus focus is on the this this current bill from a policy perspective in terms of the work we're doing on making sure we can carry forward the environmental legislation post brexit we're currently going through a process of looking at all powers and functions in current law and figuring out where the deficiencies are going to be so there's going to be a lot of work that's done under that and what that's going to do is is going to mean we are going to identify where the problems will be in carrying over the legislation and what changes we need to make to make sure it keeps functioning and we've talked with the committee about this before as as part of that process we'll need to think about how we could use the potential powers under under this bill or UK with draw ball depending on where we end up to fix deficiencies and to keep pace but there may be wider issues that need to be looked at that require more than just using deficiency powers there might be things where we actually need to make more substantive policy changes and it wouldn't be appropriate to use a deficiency powers and then we may be in the the position to be thinking about further primary related brexit legislation and that's exactly where the UK government are at the moment with their animal sentience because they've recognised that this is about more than just retaining law this is about changing policy and therefore you need to think about different primary vehicles to do that with obviously the UK government have committed to consult on environmental governance we're just awaiting initial advice from the round table on environment and climate change and we will be considering if we need to do something that's something similar if what comes out of that is a need to do to do things that might require primary legislation so there's a range of different areas where we might be required to think about that and this is all part of the process so that these are on-going considerations and we are factoring environmental principles environmental governance fixing deficiencies all of it as a package to think what would be most appropriate to go forward how advanced is that work pardon how advanced sorry how advanced is that work we are still working through identifying all the deficiencies it is a remarkable amount of work and we are making a lot of progress but there is a lot more still to do I should stress what the timescale is for that recognition of deficiencies I mean the you know we will have assuming that there is a transition period and you know I make that assumption without you know the absolute clarity there is there's probably a period between now and December 2020 in which all that work will require to be done so we have something like almost three years to get our way through what you know there are estimates of of how much work is required in that but there's certainly going to be hundreds of items that are coming forward that's why this bill is you know contains the powers it has and that's why this bill is urgent because we need to get into that position I mean the UK bill is trying to do the same thing and it isn't passed yet either and you know they will have by an order you know a magnitude a greater number of changes to bring about thank you very much thank you very much so I still want to understand whether this would mean if this if this description of what your self cabinet secretary and Kate have described went forward would that then involve a Scottish government amendment at stage tree on the face of the bill in order to clarify that yes I think I'm more than prepared to consider such an amendment I think we'd have to work out what it said what it committed itself to do but it's it's I think it would be the right way to make a commitment for example to the process in which consultation or consideration of the ways in which the principles are brought into scots law would be possible what this bill can't do is do that because it can't change European law right so I still have my substantive question which is probably to do with the fact that I'm I just don't get it it is to do with that actually but anyway we'll I'll hope cabinet secretary that you do well I'm really keen to help you to get it you know you and I have worked together on issues like this in the past I mean that you know I respect your position on this and you know my position on this is exactly the same in terms of the environmental law and what we need to do what I'm trying to do is to find a way in which we can take this forward the way we can take this forward regrettably is not in this bill but I am indicating a range of ways in which we can take this forward and between those two I'm trying to find something we can put on the face of the bill that will meet the points you're making the point to Mr Ruskell is making the points that I think to have it to have a Scottish amendments on later today so that we are content that the issue is moving forward although you may not be content that it cannot be done in this particular piece of legislation right so that is the bit that I don't get why it can't be and if I can just ask you the question because I'm as a non-lawyer as an environmentalist I think and hope maybe it could be so perhaps I could ask you the question and make the points which are I think three on the face of the bill if it's possible to refer to the chart of fundamental human rights you cabinet secretary have highlighted in your letter of yesterday to our committee that and I'm sure this committee will all agree that environmental protection is a core human right and and I think there could be the possibility of putting it something about this on to the face of the bill in relation to principles of the bill and to be frank I am aware that the Scottish government does sometimes shy away from putting principles on the bill because these can end up as a list and it can become complex but I still don't understand why as environmental protection and precautionary principle specifically but other issues as well are enshrined in EU law and indeed ECHR sorry not ECHR the the the the courts the the EU courts why we can't do this and finally I would like to know if you think we can't why why can't we put them into either the policy memorandum or explanatory notes and what status do those have okay so I know it's rather a long question but I know there are lots of other questions I'm going to have an attempt to answer it and then I'm going to ask Luke to correct my homework right so he will end he will come in and add more first of all in terms of the charter the charter is already codified it already exists as a thing which we can take and say that's it and we're putting in there and of course the charter contains only one of these things which is is the issue of the the I've now locked lost my bit of paper but I'm pretty sure that it is the precautionary principle yes it is only the precautionary principles there and there are three other issues which we would want to consider within this this list and just to be absolutely clear what those three other issues are those are the prevention and rectifying pollution sources as well as the polluter pays principle so those are the other three so first of all that is already codified that is within the general principle so that comes in and it's a set thing the other three are not so in there at the present moment so what do we do with them there's a distinction between the principles that have the distinct legal character that's the one that's in the charter and the other three which are set out in the EU treaties now they surround underpin influence the making of laws but they're not recognised in the same way if this bill were to recognise them in the same way it would move that issue forward in a way we cannot do we cannot make european law all we can do in this bill is take what exists and bring it in that's the process of brexit we can't break new ground in this but with respect kind of secretary aren't if they're in treaties then surely but they're not general principles they're not general principles the general principles are within are a different category from these guiding principles right so what we would be trying to do would be to create a situation which we could not do i'm sorry this is so technical no i wish it was a lot easier important it would be a lot easier if i could just say yes we can do it but we can't do it right and and therefore allow me i've given you my explanation i think it's a reasonably good one oh in terms of the explanatory notes i think that is a possibility i think it is certainly a possibility that we can expand the explanatory notes to put that in but i'm trying to find something that is more than that that could go on the face of the bill and that's why i'm suggesting an amendment of some sort that commits to a process that that makes sure this is not forgotten not put to one side but becomes part of the process of legislation as new legislation comes in right and the status of the explanatory notes with that they explain what the bill is about they can be taken to account in legal circumstances but they're not the same as having something on the face of the bill and that's why i'm trying to find something to go on the face of the bill so i'm not shying away from that i'm just trying to find the right thing to go on the face of the bill not the wrong thing but we cannot enact look will now underpin in some way what i have said i'm sure you've got the right 10 out of 10 always convener i can't promise this is going to be any less technical than the minister's explanation but i think it's important to understand what the bill means by continuity of law and both the continuity and the law part are quite important so in terms of continuity what the bill aims for is to replicate exactly what is in EU law at present and how it operates afterwards and that is often that is as imprecise an exercise as the exercise of asking what EU law presently is so a necessary part of that exercise is and the government's quite frank about this that where there are uncertainties or ambiguities in existing law which are required to be resolved by the courts those uncertainties and ambiguities will be part of what is carried forward that's the continuity half of things the continuity of law we're interested in so what the bill does in sections 2 to 4 and 5 is it carries forward everything in EU law that we consider has legal effect and that includes the general principles because the general principles not only can act as aids to interpretation of EU of existing EU law but they can be relied upon in challenges challenges to public authorities acting within the scope of EU law and even challenges to EU law itself those are the the general principles the guiding principles are in a slightly different category as the minister explained and that they are more in the way of an instruction to policy makers to take certain things into account they don't have in and of themselves freestanding legal effect and they would therefore require some adaptation if they were to be converted into retained EU law after exit and as the minister's explained that's not quite what this bill is about so what the bill is interested in is continuity in keeping things the same and law that is things which have legal effect to that respect and I think this is quite important just to note the provisions in the bill about the general principles in the Scottish continuity bill are slightly different from those in the EU withdrawal bill which would retain those general principles only for a single purpose that is as aids to the interpretation of EU law the Scottish government's position is that much greater continuity should be provided and it is provided for in section 5 of the bill that where there is an existing right of challenge based on one of the general principles in whatever situation that exists before exit that too is continued to after exit so there's already in the differences between the EU withdrawal bill and the continuity bill greater continuity and greater effectiveness provided for the general principles but only for the general principles that is the ones that have currently legal effect moving on Kate Forbes I could probably join the dots in your previous answers to get an answer to this question but I'll ask it in order to get a direct answer if the environmental principles were to be included in the continuity bill what impact would it have on non-environmental areas Luke Very much better than Dr Joyner's. So, well first of all just to clarify that when we carry over the general principles that will carry over the precautionary principle which has been identified as the European Court of Justice as being one of the general principles which, and apologies for the clarification, is different from what's set out in the charter so the precautionary principle is one of the general principles and that will be carried over so as Luke has said that will be a continuity so it will not make any change because that is already currently part of our law the other principles are mainly set out in article 191 and what article 191 does is asks that the union consider them in developing union policy so the question then is when we are out with the EU should we be out with the EU what would we want the obligation to be on ourselves and on Parliament to think about how we inform future policy development and that is a change because the current requirement is on the union to consider it in developing environmental policy that's not all union policy and that's not actually a direct obligation on member states or any public authority within member states so that that's what the current setup is so the answer to your question is that we actually don't know and that is what we have to consider and that is why we need to go through a process of thinking about what this means exactly what is the outcome that we want to achieve and make sure that we've consulted on that and discussed that before we make any changes this does tend to illustrate to be blunt with you the extraordinary and in my view utterly wasteful complexity of the process of Brexit I mean the conversation that we have been having for the last 20 minutes or so 25 minutes is just a small part of those conversations in which I find myself immersed in on a daily basis you know and that's why I would continue to argue this is a ridiculous process that being the case we still have to prepare ourselves for it and the bill and I want to stress this the bill is a an essential backstop in our preparation which freezes things and puts things into a situation so there is no cliff edge it is not a bill that develops policy it in small areas deviates from the UK bill because we think there are things that need to be done in that regard both in terms of listening to this Parliament on issues of scrutiny and other things but you know it is not a bill that implements new things if those bills are to come along and Brexit takes place they need to come along and Scotland needs to protect itself the best way to do so outside the EU is undoubtedly in the single market and the customs union and there are issues to be addressed there but if that is what happens then there will need to be new legislation of a variety of types both in terms of secondary legislation and corrects deficiencies and then primary legislation to chart new courses now those courses in my view will not be as good as what we have at present but that's where we are. Minister you touch on this in your letter so in a way the question's already answered but I just want to ask you about section 13 and the keeping pace power but is it your forecast as it were that what might be called environmental principles could be embedded in the future by using section 13? It's an interesting point I'm going to treat it as a positive point for a positive debate rather than anything else the effect of those of the guiding principles put it that way a particular effect of the guiding principles would be seen if a choice was made to use the keeping pace powers in particular areas because by the relevant cabinet secretary we're dealing with environmental issues here under anything else it would apply to other issues as well of course but the effect of them would be seen because the items that were being taken and kept pace with would be items that had been developed as has been indicated by Kate in terms of the development of the policy on those items but with respect to those guiding principles so the effect of them would be seen I think we would want to take a clearer much more upfront view as I've indicated of how we take those guiding principles forward as principles per se by consulting on them and by finding primary legislation with which to include them but their effect would be seen in the powers that we would take under article 13 with the approval of the Parliament. So I'm just hypothesising here if if say the EU took a more stringent view of say the polluter pays principle say that changed in the future and it became much stricter in practice would it be the keeping pace power that allowed the Scottish government to replicate that? No it would only be replicated in so far as it dealt with a specific power a specific set of circumstances which the cabinet secretary had come to the parliament and his committee and saying we would like to keep pace with this power in the circumstances remember it's also not an unlimited power so it wouldn't last forever so it would be the effect of that principle which had and the outcome of that which had been consciously chosen by the government of the day and approved by the parliament so to do it would not in those circumstances be taking forward the principle itself that would be for the parliament to decide once it had decided how it wanted to take care of the issues of these principles within law. Thank you. Stuart Stevens is involved by Mark Ruskell. Thank you very much. Do the guiding principles already influence Scott's law and policy because of what they say rather than because they come from the EU? That's a deeply philosophical question I have to say which I suspect the answer is yes but I'd really probably like to consult somebody on the issues of jurisprudence on that before I answered it but it would seem to me that if you take the wider issue of development of jurisprudence and the way in which decisions of the ECJ affect courts within Scotland then the answer probably is yes but you know you are sitting next to an advocate who would be better placed to answer these questions than I would. I've tried minister. The conscious choice to apply guiding principles when considering new keeping pace legislation does that also imply that there's a conscious choice perhaps not to apply guidelines as well? In which case what would be your judgment on that? Are there opportunities to not apply the precautionary principle or not apply the police to pace principle? I don't think there's any opportunity not to apply the precautionary principle because it is being enshrined and is enshrined within the charge and would come as part of that. The other one's also influenced the law which has been made which is coming into our law and therefore would be law that the judgments would affect future judgments but I think you would also want to say and I want to be very clear about this there would be political choices to be made. My political choice would be to ensure that these are powers that not only continue but grow in influence. There are some people in you know I hope not in the Scottish Parliament but there are some people in the UK who I think view would be very different and we've heard those views being given in terms of what they would like to get rid of in terms of environmental laws so there will be political choices to be made that is why one of the many many reasons I think we should remain in the EU so that we are in actual fact part of a progressive movement on these issues rather than run the risk of being part of a regressive movement on this issue but my view is there are some things which we can with certainty say will maintain and some things we will may have to make choices on. But why allow that political choice over guiding principles in relation to keeping pace provisions? That is a situation we find ourselves in. Brexit is a situation not of our choosing but Brexit is in my view an attempt to diminish all sorts of rights and privileges that we presently have that's why it should be resisted but I can't give you a guarantee of any sort but I can say that this current government wants to do its best to ensure things move forward and will do so that's why I've indicated we're trying to find a way to put on the face of this bill the key issues that we can move forward but what we can't do is do things that do not have standing or status or do not exist because if we did that we would be ultravarious in a variety of ways so we're trying to do what you suggest to do but this is fraught with difficulty and it's fraught with difficulty it's the process of Brexit is fraught with difficulty and you can't look to this parliament to find every solution to that because unfortunately you know the people of Scotland clearly voted against it happening but they're presently being dragged out of Europe against their will and that's the political reality. But with due respect I mean if we were to legislate now for a new piece of legislation that didn't incorporate Plutipae's principle, it didn't incorporate a precautionary principle but we're not doing that. We would be in a difficult situation. I just want to be absolutely clear we're not doing that. So how do we enshrine these guiding principles in relation to the keeping pace provisions? I really want to be absolutely clear that's not what we're doing with the greatest respect that is a misrepresentation or that unwitting of what we're doing. What we're doing is we're taking the legislation which contains those things and has been drawn up in that way and bringing it back into Scotland. That's what we're trying to do and that's what the bill does and that's what we will do. We are also where there are the guiding principles identified making sure that they're in and they can be acted on because they have been the basis of decision making right and there are cases to do so. There are three other items which are not in that position which we are saying we need to find a way to include those in primary legislation and we would like to do so. The cabinet secretary has indicated to it, I've indicated to it, but we're saying we can't do it in this bill because that's not what this bill is about and that runs the risk of putting this bill in a very dangerous position. So we're not saying we're not going to do that. We're saying we want to do it. We're saying we're trying to find a way to do it but we're saying it can't be done in some of the ways that are being suggested because that's impossible for this bill. I just want to make that absolutely clear. John Scott. Thank you, convener. Thank you minister. In terms of what is in this bill and what this bill is about, how do you see section 13 working in relation to the issues within the remit of this committee? I think I've indicated one or two of the areas in which that would be helpful to this committee. I've used some examples but let me just tease those out. The aquatic animal health regulation in Scotland is 2009, with which you are no doubt intimately familiar. I know you well, Mr Scott, and I know that such detail never escapes you. That means that whenever the EU adds a new fish disease to its list of identifiable diseases, we exercise a par under section 22 of the European Communities Act 1972 and we add those diseases to our own regulatory regime. Now that's the sensible thing to do. I mean I've been environment minister. I've dealt with outbreaks of fish disease during my time. You need to act very, very quickly and very resolutely. That's the power in there. We could lose that power unless we are able to take a keeping pace action. The keeping pace action would be the minister, the cabinet secretary, coming to this committee explaining why this is necessary and a process of scrutiny taking place. The keeping pace power would allow us to continue to do that. That's very important to us. Another example that you will be even more familiar with is the issue of invasive species. There is an automatic updating of the list of invasive species depending on the identification that takes place within the European Union. You're also familiar with this in animal health, where issues of animal health may arise to the east and may spread across to the west, as happens. In those circumstances, you want to be able to take action without necessarily going through the hoops of primary legislation, so the keeping pace power in clear practical areas is important. I don't envisage and Mr Cameron asked me the question. I don't envisage that power is being used in major areas where you would want primary legislation but in areas where there is a sensible solution to be found it should be found. Would that be under the standard affirmative procedure? That is an issue that requires to be teased out in the debates that will take place during the rest of today. There is a clear demand within the chamber and we heard it from a range of individuals last week to examine this very closely and to find ways of scrutinising it more closely and I am listening to that and I am open to that. That's a decision in the bill that will eventually come about. Mr Scott, you get for the question. Thank you and thank you for reminding me. I should have declared in interest as a former expert in sighting animal diseases as part of my knowledge sphere. Can you, having very helpfully provided a list of examples that are within the remit of the committee, elaborate in your view what the implications are for the environment of not having a keeping pace provision? Exactly as I have indicated, it would be burdensome and it would mean that the speed of action that is often required in these circumstances does not take place. To draw across into another matter that has concerned me very greatly over the last few weeks, it is a question of how we would play these issues within a UK framework. If we were to have frameworks, which I am entirely in favour of, then those frameworks would be able to take advantage of a keeping pace power that existed across these islands in order to put this in place and maybe those the governance of those frameworks would benefit from making the ability to access a keeping pace power. I am in favour of that type of work taking place and I would have thought that if the keeping pace, the framework existed, but the keeping pace power did not, you would find yourself with a much more cumbersome and less fleet of foot purpose. As we know in animal health for example, speed is of the essence as it is in aquaculture as well. Of course, you are much closer to the discussions than I am. Is this something keeping pace that the UK Government is considering or not? I am sure that you have made this point to them. We were disappointed that it did not and does not exist in the current EU withdrawal bill. We think that that was a major opportunity loss. There appears to be an ideological objection to it. The frameworks would give you the opportunity to at least discuss it again, and if one part of these islands had it, and it also exists in the Welsh Bill, so Wales would have it as well. This might be an example to England, for example. It is a power that they should seek to have, but we would certainly want to exercise it. On the frameworks issue, we recognise the need for frameworks to exist, for example, in animal health areas. We are quite willing to be part of those frameworks. The only difference of opinion is that they have to be agreed by this Parliament, and that is what we still intend to have them. It includes the keeping pace provision and the continuity bill, although no clause exists in the withdrawal bill. Does it not increase the potential for different environmental regulations in Scotland? What you have alluded to—a vis of species or whatever—is one that is more interested in what may travel north to south or south to north rather than east to west. Is it not potentially divisive and not particularly sensible to have both technically and politically to have differences between moving at different paces? There are already changes that devolution has brought, which this Parliament has been quite comfortable with. For example, GM crops, air quality targets, food waste targets, water framework directive. There are changes that exist, and the nature of devolution is that decisions are made by the various parts of these islands on the principle of subsidiarity, and these are the right things to happen. I would argue that we should trade up rather than trade down, and therefore the examples I have given are good examples to look at. I absolutely agree that the potential for animal disease, if you look at variety, if you look at a variety of animal diseases in the past, you would want to make sure that north, south and east-west were covered. I do not make decisions for the UK, but my view is that this power should exist within the withdrawal bill because it is a sensible power to have. Therefore, when I have the opportunity in this bill to put it in there, that is what the Welsh have done too. That recognises the reality of devolution that we all learn from each other. I would like to see that power existing. I do not think that it is divisive to have the highest standards and to want to continue to observe the highest standards. It is perhaps rather than divisive an exemplar of what should take place. It appears from section 5.1 of the Scottish bill that it seeks to achieve the same outcome as schedule 1 paragraph 2 of the UK bill, albeit using a different approach. Why is the Scottish Government taking that different approach? What practical difference of any does it make? Luke, I am sure that we will wish to respond. To return to some of the things that I was mentioning earlier, the bill expresses this in different ways because the UK Government's approach is very explicitly to preserve the general principles as part of domestic law after withdrawal only to the extent that they are in aid to interpretation. In contrast, as I discussed, the Scottish Government's approach is to provide that the general principles have the same legal effect, attract the same legal status after withdrawal, as they did before. For the reasons that I gave earlier, this is not a status that can be described with enormous precision, but the effect that the bill has is that that status is continued after exit day. That is the difference. That is the difference. I thank you for clarifying that. Richard Lyle. If I were one, I would get what you are saying. This is all about continuity. Basically, if anyone cannot get that, I do not know where they are going off. Can I turn to how the EU general purposes principles inherent in retained EU law are giving the effect? I am sure that Luke will answer that question. If the only person in the street asked you, could you explain to them why the Scottish Government has chosen to retain the right of action and the power for courts to quash law and decisions based on the incompatibility with the general principles of EU law section 5.2? That is the fact that we are nice people. I am sure that Luke will answer that. The Scottish Government's position across the bill has been that, in a number of the policy differences that Mr Russell had pointed out earlier, we have decided to provide for greater continuity, as we saw. For example, over the charter of fundamental rights, it was an explicit decision by the UK Government not to retain that, to limit its effect after withdrawal. We have chosen a more maximalist approach. The same reasoning lay behind the decision to retain rights of action based on the general principles. The situation is going to be confusing enough, as the minister indicated, without attempting to tinker with what already exists at the same time as doing the already complex job of trying to convert it into domestic law. Can you also explain how section 5.2 sits with section 7.1, which removes the ability to challenge the validity of EU law from which devolved, retained, EU law derives? I am going to say a number of the same things. At present, domestic courts do not have the ability to strike down European law on the grounds of validity, and there would require to be some adaptation to those principles and procedures on the point of exit if we were to provide for it. That is why section 7 has taken the power, enabling us to customise domestic courts' ability to strike down retained EU law after exit. Section 5, at subsection 5, makes it clear that the retention of rights of action under section 5 is subject to section 7 and to any provision made under section 7. Section 5 does, however, preserve a much wider range of rights of action than simply the ability to challenge retained EU law on the grounds of validity. For example, the retention of the general principles under section 5 would allow you to challenge administrative action by a public authority on the grounds that it did not comply with one of the general principles, and that is unaffected by section 7. You also have to recognise, as part of the context of this, that there is an antipathy to the European Court of Justice and its rulings within the motivation for Brexit, which is largely not shared within Scotland. There is a very effective Scottish judge on the court. The court itself is not seen as inimical to Scottish interests. Indeed, there are a wide range of areas in which we have been greatly helped by the existence of the court. There is a context within the policymaking that we profoundly disagree with. Therefore, we would want to make sure that we are not continuing to express that antipathy in ways that are unhelpful to the ordinary citizen. I have a brief question and then a slightly longer question. First, I thank you for getting the response to our letter back so quickly. Just for the record, because it was not touched on in your response, can you confirm that the principles in the charter of fundamental rights can be modified by the powers in section 11 as part of the domestication process, insofar as necessary to deal with a deficiency or making the law work properly? The short answer is yes. The charter will form part of retained devolved law after withdrawal and will therefore be subject to the powers that can operate on retained devolved law. I should emphasise, though, that this is not done in anticipation of any concrete plan by the Scottish Government to change the charter of fundamental rights or any of its provisions, the extent to which the charter is currently entrenched and not modifiable is a product of the fact that it belongs to a supranational institution over which we do not have influence. It is the unnecessary effect of domesticating instruments like the charter, instruments like the corpus of retained EU law that they will become subject to the powers of this Parliament. That is my longer question. Under what circumstances would you envisage modification to the charter? None. The incorporation of the charter is very specifically limited by section 5 subsection 1 so that it has effect immediately before exit day in EU law and as it relates to anything to which sections 2, 3 or 4, which are the three principle sections that domesticate the law applies. The effect of the charter after exit day will be limited. It will be limited to effectively the subject matter of the continuity bill. I have another for-the-record question just to get clarity. It appears that both the UK Bill and the Scottish Bill allow but do not require courts to take account of decisions of the ECJ post exit. Why is the Scottish Bill drafted differently to the UK Bill on this one and again what are the practical differences achieved? The provision made for the interpretation of law retained devolved EU law under the Bill is in practice very similar to that made under the EU withdrawal bill. The Scottish Government does not think that it would be appropriate to put a higher or more stringent test into the Bill requiring on some unspecified for now grounds the courts to apply law in more strict circumstances or in particular circumstances. As I have said, there is an inherent imprecision involved in the exercise. Mr Russell mentioned the British judge, the Scottish judge on the general court of justice at the moment. Judge Forrester gave a speech recently on the Scottish Council of Law reporting website, you can see a copy, where he describes the current state of EU law as a mass of tangled wires, and all we can really do is try to transfer them from one place to another. For that reason, we think that the best way of retaining the courts' existing ability to bring precision to where there is imprecision is to empower the courts, as is done under section 10, to take into account where they consider it appropriate and not to where they do not. The Scottish Government does not consider there to be much value in going further than that. So essentially what achieves the same purpose? It achieves broadly the same purpose. There is one difference between section 10's interpretation provisions and the corresponding interpretation provisions in the EU withdrawal bill, which is that we would continue to apply the interpretative obligations under section 10 to retained EU law, as it is developed under the bill by default. Under the UK bill, when law is modified by default, the interpretative obligation falls away. We have chosen to change the default rule, but the default rule only, both rules can be supplied. In the particular, on the general, how will the incorporation of these general principles of EU law impact the policy areas again covered by the committee's remit? Member states are already bound by the general principle of EU law. That influences the way that they interpret and apply the laws. Through this bill, the bill that we are trying to put in place, and I do not over claim for this bill because this bill cannot change policy, but these principles have retained for all purposes and incorporated into our law. So in the end there will be no practical difference in how these principles impact on the policy areas covered by the committee. They will simply form part of Scott's law rather than the status being EU law. Now that means, for example, perish the thought that Acts of Scottish Ministers, Acts of Public Authorities can still be struck down if we have not applied the general principles that are incorporated. So the responsibilities to observe the law remain unchanged, but that law goes from being the status of EU law and is folded into our law. That is the process that we are engaged in. We are engaged in the process of saying that there should not be a cliff edge because if we did not do this, I suppose that this is the easiest way to understand this. If we did not do this, we would get to whatever date it is that everything finally changes and there wouldn't be any law. If we just sat in our hands, and if the UK Government sat in our hands, there wouldn't be any law, there would be a cliff edge, we wouldn't know. So we have to convert this into the situation here. Now the issue of deficiencies arises when the conversion won't work properly and something has to be changed. For example, on agricultural policy, referring to the common agricultural policy and the council of ministers doesn't work because that won't exist. So how do we change that? That's the issue. But it is a standstilling, a freezing. That's why the word freezing is used. It is a freezing and moving in rather than anything else. Now then there is the issue of what changes you would like to bring in in what way. Some of those changes are forced upon you because of the fact that there are deficiencies and incompatibilities and other changes are things such as a change that we're talking about, principles where you will want to be able to do something stronger, more effective and you will want to make sure that you do that. That is a process with which the cabinet secretary for Rosanna Cunningham will want to be engaged with the committee. But those deficiencies and incompatibilities are a matter for another day, but you would say that there would be no change effectively to the policy areas covered by this committee. You start off in that position because that's where we are. Remember that there are issues, Mr Scott will be aware, where if there is divergence and there is regulatory divergence, there will be a price to be paid for that. You'll either in terms of export or in terms of principles and in terms of standards. That is the issue of regulatory divergence, which also applies to the issue of the Northern Irish border, which then becomes very complex and worrying. Thank you. Final question, Mark Ruskell. Thank you. Minister, the bill doesn't deal with governance and you've touched on that already for the reasons why that is. Can you outline then what the process will be for filling that governance gap? At the moment, the potential for a cliff edge is there if we don't have adequate monitoring, scrutiny and enforcement powers. Well, quickly, Rosanna Cunningham has written to this committee on this issue, has made it clear that this is an issue that now requires some urgent approach. She's currently seeking advice from the round table on environment and climate change. She's asked for initial advice on that. Indeed, such is the coincidence of circumstances that she and I will both be in front of this committee again next week. That will give her the opportunity to discuss environmental principles and governance following Brexit, should that take place. She is fully cited on that. She wants to discuss that with the committee. She is taking advice on that, and she will bring forward, after consultation, I'm sure, the solutions that will arise from this committee and elsewhere. That's an issue that will have to be tackled, and it will have to be tackled in a couple of years to be in place post-exit. Do you see there being a risk that there will be a gap? Well, there shouldn't be a gap and there mustn't be a gap, and that's what she is working towards. This is a set of circumstances not of our making, and therefore we have to respond to them, but nobody wishes there to be a gap. Just as a continuity bill will make sure that there is no legislative cliff edge, she will want to put in place arrangements, no doubt listening to this committee. It means that there is no governance cliff edge. Will there be clarity on day one, or even before that date, as to what the roles and functions of institutions will be in terms of... There will require to be clarity on those matters, obviously, but I don't want to stress into her areas of responsibility. I am clear what my responsibilities are. She has responsibility of taking this forward. She and I, as I say, are appearing in front of you next week, and we will in our respective roles be able to answer those questions. Okay. Minister, thank you for your time this morning. That has been, I think, very helpful in clarifying a number of questions that the committee had. At its next meeting on March 20, the committee will consider the conservation of salmon's Scotland amendment regulations and will take evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, and, as we have just heard, the minister for UK negotiations on Scotland's place in Europe, on the environmental implications for Scotland of the UK leaving the EU. We now move into private session and I ask the gallery to be cleared.