We'll make a start. Welcome to the 28th meeting in 2015 of the rule affairs climate change and environment committee. The committee was in Eiland Dura earlier this week in meetings with tenant farmers and representatives of Eila estate and others, as well as hosting a public meeting on a land reform bill of Scotland. I would like to thank those that we met for their time and the evidence provided, and I would also like to thank all those who attended our public meeting for their interest in the bill and for assisting us with our deliberations. Before we move to the first item on the agenda, I'd like to remind everyone present to switch off mobile phones as they may affect the broadcasting system. However, you may notice that some committee members consulting tablets during the meeting to do so because they are using the tablets to read their papers. I should also welcome Jamie McGregor, who is coming to the committee for a section of this business regarding MPAs. So agenda item 1 today is a decision on taking business in private. The first item then this morning is to decide on items 5 and 6 to take these in private. Are members in agreement that we should do so? We are agreed, so we will take items 5 and 6 in private. We are going to welcome to take evidence on the agricultural holdings remedial order 2014 on mediation and compensation processes. I welcome the cabinet secretary and his officials, Richard Lochhead, Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment, Paul Cackette, Deputy Slyster and Head of Group 2 and Toody Sharp, Deputy Director for Agriculture, Rural Development and Land Reform. Good morning to you all. I invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement. I would like to make a short only statement to set out the Scottish Government's position in a number of areas relating to mediation and compensation. Those areas have been covered more in detail in the correspondence so far with the committee and most recently my letter to you of 17 September. The issue that we are discussing today is, of course, of importance to many tenant farmers in Scotland and indeed landlords and it relates to changes to one category of tenancy agreements between landlords and tenants. Prior to 2003, limited liability partnerships could be dissolved with minimal notice. That potentially exposed tenants to the risk of their tenancy agreements being revoked at very short notice. The Agricultural Holding Scotland Act 2003 sought to protect the position of those tenants and transferred their tenancies into 1991 act tenancies, long-term heritable tenancies with security of tenure and succession rights. However, on 24 April 2013, 10 years later, the Supreme Court issued its judgment in the case of Salveson v Riddle, which involved a dispute between a landowner and a tenant over the dissolution of a limited partnership. In its judgment, the court held that section 7210 of the 2003 act was outside legislative competence as its effect breached landlords' ECHR property rights. The court provided the Scottish Government with 12 months to put right the defect. The Agricultural Holding Scotland Act 2003 Remedial Order 2014 is the legal remedy put in place to address the defect, and it came into force on 3 April 2014. The Remedial Order sought to balance the respective ECHR rights of landlords and tenants and allows landlords a means of recovering vacant procession through section 73 of the 2003 act. To bring tenancies to an end, the landlords must serve conversion notices. The Remedial Order contained a cooling off period in which these notices can be served, and this period ends on 28 November 2015, in a few weeks' time. The cooling off period and notice provisions in section 73 ensure that tenants served with dissolution notices are therefore afforded four and a half years of extra tenure under the Remedial Order, meaning that this runs until 28 November 2018. The Remedial Order places such tenants in a better position than they would have been had the 2003 act's provisions not violated the rights of the landlords. In that event, the tenancies would have ended the dissolution of the limited partnership, or shortly thereafter, through the operation of section 73. Under the Remedial Order, the tenant has three further years of tenancies under section 72A and 73, as I have said above. Landlords and tenants have been and are also free to agree private arrangements. If landlords take no action by 28 November this year, then the tenancies converted under the 2003 act will remain as 1991 act tenancies. We understand that around 350 notices were served on the night of 3 February 2003. Now, however, only seven cases to our knowledge remain unresolved. For those remaining seven cases, we have proposed and do propose mediation to encourage and secure positive working relationships between affected landlords and tenants and find appropriate solutions to support the on-going viability of the affected holdings. The Government initially proposed a two-stage process for mediation with stage 1 focusing on sharing information and clarifying facts, and stage 2 offering the possibility of a negotiated position or solution if appropriate in light of the particular circumstances of each case. In practice, it is fair to say, and I think that the committee accepts as well, the Government's proposed procedure has not materialised in the way that we did in Visage. We asked any party wishing to engage in mediation to clarify whether they wish to claim against the Scottish Government and the legal basis of such a claim before entering into mediation. This was so that we could assess and confirm our position, so that any participation in the mediation by the Scottish Government would be on an open and understood position about liability. The offer of mediation was taken up by the tenant and landlord associated with just one farm. That tenant was one of seven who took their claims to court against the Government, however, by raising a petition in the court session in March 2015. However, the landlord in the case only intimated a claim on 17 August 2015. The Scottish Government's position and compensation has always been that we could not comment on or commit to the payment of compensation in individual cases until the basis of such claims had been made known to us. That was the position during the passage of the remedial order and reiterated when I wrote to the committee on 5 December 2014. The current position is that seven tenants have raised this multimillion-pound court action against the Government seeking compensation. The action has been assisted until 19 October and liability has been repudiated. The Scottish Government's position on liability has been consistent from the start and we cannot pay compensation and settlement of a claim which is no legal or factual basis. We have acknowledged that the remedial order may only be part of the solution and have said that the Scottish Government is and has always been open to considering all claims presented to us. At the time of the committee's consideration of the order in 2014, we did not know the basis of any claim that might be brought against the Government in the future. In evidence of the committee, we confirmed that any future case would be considered in its merits in light of the particular facts and circumstances. That was clearly never intended to be a blank check to pay compensation regardless of liability nor could it have been. So our position remains that should a claim against the Scottish Government be presented and we take the view that legal liability will arise then we will of course consider the claim in that context. However, in light of the committee's concerns and those of the tenant farmers and no doubt landlords and their agents, I give the commitment to the committee that I am determined to resolve this as quickly as possible if at all possible provided that we can persuade the landlords and tenants to come into the mediation process. Given the next few weeks will be crucial in doing that, we will redouble our efforts to try and make that happen. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. I invite members to ask questions of the cabinet secretary at this moment, Alec Ferguson. Thank you, convener, and thank you for that statement, cabinet secretary. Good morning. I do not think that it is going to serve a great purpose to rake over too much what has happened in the past, but I could not help to notice, cabinet secretary, that you mentioned the importance of sharing information throughout this process. In evidence that we have been given, it is quite clear that the process that the tenants involved and their representatives and indeed this committee thought had been agreed, effectively ground to a halt after the court cases were tabled, if that is the correct expression. Whether or not that should have had an impact on the mediation process, which you say it has, and I do not dispute that, that information was clearly not shared with the tenants and their representatives, who have been left hanging in an information vacuum since early April, until, as far as I can see, the committee raised the matter with you during the summer recess to try to kickstart the process again. In previous discussions that we have had, it seems to me that all the actions that have been taken since the end of March have been entirely reactive by Scottish Government officials. Can you give us an absolute assurance that you and your officials will now get on the front foot and become proactive in bringing this pretty sorry mess back to the table to try to reach a satisfactory conclusion? I certainly give the committee the assurance that we will redouble our efforts to try and resolve this issue. We are just as keen as anyone else to see a just outcome for those involved and the six or seven cases still on the table. Without going over old grounds, clearly there have been a couple of milestones in the process that have affected the pace of getting to a resolution. Firstly, we had to await for the basis of the claims to be presented to us prior to the mediation process starting, and that did take some time. Although I will certainly investigate the evidence that you have been presented as a committee in terms of the Government's role in contributing towards the slow progress, I will look at that and I am concerned with that. Clearly that was a contributing factor. The second factor was when we learned that a court action had been lodged against the Government for substantial levels of money, and therefore that changed the environment in which we were operating and when we could see it because there was a live court action against the Government from the tenant farmers involved. That happened in March, so clearly that played a role in the pace of getting this resolved. However, I give you the commitment. If I could just extend that a little bit. I hear what you say about the court case in March, but the point that I was trying to make is that nobody told the tenants' representatives that this would have an impact on the pace of the mediation process. Nobody told them. You talked about the importance of information sharing, and I absolutely agree with you, but information stopped being shared once those court cases came into being. This needs to be moved forward and it needs to be proactively done by your officials, and I think that you have given us an assurance that that will be the case. I mean clearly we are dealing with a case here that goes back to 2003, and we put forward the remedial order in Parliament which we felt under the circumstances gave the best possible outcome for the tenant farmers in particular in terms of the four, four and a half years, they would at least have some animal periods to remain in their farms. However, it is against a very complex backdrop of both legislation and legality. Agents were appointed by the tenant farmers whom we have dealt with over that period of time. If that has not worked in terms of sharing of information, as I said before, that does cause me concern and I will certainly look into that. I am just trying to get to the bottom of why there has been a change. I have had evidence from tenants who have been unfortunately involved in this sorry mess that there were Government official appointed mediators working with them, and then it suddenly stopped overnight, and they could not communicate with them in any respect whatsoever. It seems that there was a change by the Scottish Government almost overnight, and when you gave evidence to us and it is in our report, February 7, 2014, that there was a recognition that there may be some compensation that would come forward, but even so at that stage you were committed to funding mediation, and you even stated that it would cost an estimated £40,000. I remember that we thought that that was quite low because that was for all, but you actually said that if the cost goes above £40,000, we will cover it. Is it the cost that the mediation has made you change your mind on helping people with the mediation, or has there been a reaction completely to what you knew would have happened, which was the fact that there may be some tenants actually looking for compensation from the Government itself? Well, firstly, no, it's not the cost of the mediation, and we did indicate to the committee that we made £40,000 available for the mediation process. Part of that has been used up, part of it is still available, so clearly it's not a cost issue. In terms of compensation, no one wants to be caught up in messy court actions. We do not want tent farmers to find themselves in that position. Clearly, the Government does not want to end up being in the courts in relation to an action from tent farmers due to something happening back in 2003, which we are doing our best to fix in a just way. We have to remember that the Supreme Court's findings in 2014 found that the landlords were the injured party. Therefore, there is not just the tent farmers to consider in terms of compensation, there are landlords as well. In terms of the mediation process, which would be both tent farmers and landlords, as well as the Government being involved in that, we are unable to put ourselves in a legal position when we get into an open checkbook into that environment. Clearly, that has been a sticking point. How we can get ourselves into a position where the mediation process can work without us being in a position when we get into an open checkbook with the public purse picking up any compensation costs with both tent farmers and landlords who were found as the injured party by the Supreme Court's seeking compensation. The purpose by which I said that the Government was willing to keep compensation on the table was simply that if there was a legal liability for the Government, rather than fight it through the courts with the tent farmers, it would have been everyone's interest that we reached a settlement through the mediation process. That is why I was willing and still remain in that position that compensation would not be taken off the table, because clearly it would be a better alternative in some circumstances than fighting a messy action through the courts. I appreciate that answer, but we are talking about two different things. The mediation is between the tenant and the landlord, and we must ensure that that continues in some respects. I appreciate that the Scottish Government has now had second thoughts on our concern about mediating in case that leaves them open to compensation. What we really need and I would have hoped that you have been able to come to this table today with something was the solution of continuing the mediation, whether you are bringing in independent mediators in some respects, rather than basically stopping help with mediation overnight, which seems to have happened several months ago. Even in the last few days, we now find ourselves in a better position in terms of mediation, and we hope to be able to move forward in that we have had an intimation from the tenant farmers that they are willing to take part in the mediation process. I will be very keen for that to happen and to happen as soon as possible. As far as I get from my letters from tenant farmers, they have always been keen to participate in the mediation process. Cabinet Secretary, can I quote from the judgment itself in the Supreme Court, which recognised that any adverse effect on the rights of tenants resulting from the decision will need to be resolved via a fair and constructive process, agreed by the Parliament and guided by Scottish ministers. The committee, when it was reporting on the remedial order, made two points that are very germane to that. It said that the Government must accept liability for anyone who is financially and or personally disadvantaged by the remedy put in place and for any stress suffered by those involved. It went on to say that it was important that the enactment of the proposed draft order did not lead to a drawn-out compensation process and should be concluded as timiously as possible. The situation that we are in now is that all three of those are in some danger of not being achieved, all three of those objectives. What I would be looking for, and I think that the tenants are looking for, and I imagine that the committee is looking for, is a commitment—to be fair, you have made that commitment earlier on and I just want to be explicit about it—a commitment that you are still committed to the fair and constructive process, that you do accept, by negotiation of course, that there is liability for those who are financially or personally disadvantaged. Finally, you are committed to doing something about the process, because it seems to me that the process has gone badly wrong. Whatever the reason for that is, and that is not what we are here to talk about, it does mean that tenants now are unsure about the future, are unsure about what lies ahead. Although some may have the prospect of another three years, they are not sure of that process. They need to have information, the legal process needs to be speeded up and there needs to be a commitment in public that this is going to be resolved within the parameters that were set by the Supreme Court and accepted by this parliamentary committee and by the Parliament when the report was given. Those were not just observations, the report was accepted by the Parliament, the remedial order was accepted by the Parliament, the judgment was accepted by the Government, so those are commitments that need to be honoured. I do want to give the committee the commitment that I will do my utmost to resolve this in an equitable and fair manner and also review the process that will help to achieve that. Clearly, the chain of events that has got us to where we are, I am not saying that the Government is completely blameless here at all, and if there are issues with the process or communication, I will investigate those concerns. Clearly, there have been a sequence of events outwith our control that have also influenced the pace of progress. The Government's approach has always been a kind of twofold. Firstly, there was the remedial order itself where we went to great lengths to ensure that we were not in a situation where tenant farmers were going to have to leave their farms quickly. Clearly, the remedial order has allowed four and a half years of extra tenure that may have otherwise been the case, including the 18-month cooling off period. Other than one well-documented case, my understanding is that no notices to quit have been served, and therefore we still have a few weeks left up until the conversion deadline that landlords have the opportunity to take advantage of. The second stage of the process that I was going to mention is finding a way of resolving this so that we do not have a situation where farmers feel themselves in a very vulnerable situation and face leaving their farms, so that can at all be helped. We do presently feel in that position, as you know, so I think that remedy within a very short timescale is what is required. I am sure that the committee will want to know to hear back from you over the next few weeks that that timescale has been observed. The final comment that I just really want to make in response to Michael Russell is that I will do that, but clearly there are other parties in this process. There are the landlords who, under the Supreme Court judgment, are the injured parties, the tenant farmers and the Government, so clearly, hopefully, we can all play a constructive role in getting us to where we want to get to. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary, and that clarification will be helpful to everybody because the confusion that has proceeded has not been in anyone's interests, landlords or tenants. I would like to highlight the case of one constituent without going into any detail about it simply because there is a notice to quit, which is by the 28th of November of this year. I think that it would be helpful in terms of the timescale for that tenant if it was possible. I appreciate that it is a complex case, which is not appropriate to discuss here, but it was possible to have a commitment to look at a way in which that might be, if not resolved, satisfactory, which may not be possible, at least looked into by the Scottish Government in a very urgent manner to see whether there is anything that can be done to support the family who do face an eviction order. I will look at the details of the case and whether there is any prospect of a role for the Government. I already know that the offer of mediation in that particular case has been offered. The circumstances around the case, although it is not going into detail for obvious reasons, do not directly relate to the remedial order that we are discussing today, but it is a sensitive case, so I will look at it. I appreciate that. Are there any other questions for the cabinet secretary just now? Thank you. I think that Mike Russell or Alex Fawkes talked earlier about proactivity in that process. You made the point a few seconds ago about needing the landlords to engage in that as well for the mediation process. Will the Government officials proactively approach the landlords concerned to try to encourage them to engage in that rather than just simply sit back and see if they are prepared to do it? Yes, we will. Clearly, a lot of the communication at the moment has gone through legal agents on behalf of all the various parties, but I will, in light of today's comments on the committee, re-double our efforts to make sure that the communication is good. Jim Heughan. I just wonder if I have heard the mention of a commitment to get the mediation going again. I wonder if we could forecast a timetable for that process to actually occur. Would that be a possibility at this stage? Well clearly, the email I think I was referring to earlier on only arrived yesterday in the last 48 hours, and we will respond to that email and try to push things as forward as quickly as possible. In terms of the overall timescale that I did to indicate other on, I think that the next few weeks are quite crucial, so sooner we get that going the better. Thank you very much, convener. Just a quick question to ask where the policy lies now, and whether that is something that you will address in the current land reform bill that we are addressing in Parliament as to what the Government's intention is in terms of this policy issue, which failed in 2003 and then you have had the remedial order. What is next in terms of the policy development? There are a couple of issues that arise out of that question. First of all, it is the sensitivity that we have to have in terms of ECHR and property rights, which clearly the Supreme Court judgment was based upon and which gives us all pause for thinking in terms of future legislation, because I do not want the forthcoming legislation in land reform, which contains provisions on agriculture holdings, to allow us to end up in the position that we are in just now due to the 2003 act, who do not want to be in the same position in a few years' time, so I have to be conscious of that in terms of taking forward the policy. The second issue is that over limited partnerships, where more work will have to be done in relation to limited partnerships, and I think that is something that the committee took an interest in. That is a very complicated issue because the focus of the agriculture holdings provisions in the land reform bill is on other dimensions of agriculture holdings, not specifically limited partnerships. Claudia Beamish Thank you for the point of clarification, cabinet secretary. The petition for judicial review that was lodged in March is, as I understand it, one of the reasons for the lack of things moving forward, the failure for things to move forward. Will that now in any way impede the process that we have been talking about today in relation to mediation and compensation? I would like clarity on that. I am not quite sure what has changed. Michael Russell My understanding is that, in so far as we have to be careful as to what extent compensation can be discussed as part of the mediation process, because any admission of liability during the mediation process will impact on the court action. I guess that a layman's view of that would be should we admit any kind of liability during the mediation process, and there is a multimillion pound court action in the background, clearly that would influence the Government's defence within the court action. Michael Russell Any further questions? If there are none, I would just like to thank members for this, and the cabinet secretary and his team. Some clarification of the communication issues between the parties has been explored, and the work of Racky. This committee has helped to bring, hopefully, some clarity about an effective and timious remedy to this matter, which we all find very aggrieved about and, indeed, particularly for the party's concern, but also for the process of government that we are hoping that this committee has helped to make clearer. Thank you very much. That will bring an end to this particular item, and we will change panels for the next item in the minister, too. Michael Russell Welcome back to the meeting, everyone. The third item of business on our agenda today is to take evidence on marine protected areas. We have been enjoined by representatives of the fishing sector, and I think that it would be useful if, from the left, you introduce yourselves and say who you are. Duncan McLean I am Secretary of West for Nile's Fisherman's Association. Don't touch the microphone, sir. I am Willie John McLean, and I am here on behalf of the Martin of West Fishman's Association. Kenny McNab, chairman of the Clyde Fisherman's Association. Alasdair Houston, chairman of the Scottish Scallop Divers Association. Alasdair Sinclair, national co-ordinator of the Scottish Crew Fisherman's Federation. State Basteman, conservation officer for the Scottish Sangling Conservation Network. David Fraser Scallop Fisherman Thank you very much for being here. Good morning to you all, gentlemen. We wish to explore some issues related to the creation of MPAs, and we are interested in looking at the first of all the effectiveness of the consultation process, which I think I will ask the first question about. Subsequent to the earlier consultations by the Marine Scotland, it has been alleged that they weren't reflective of the reality of the economic impacts and so on. I would like to ask if anyone—you don't all have to answer, but you indicate to me that we will bring you in about the consultation process and your understanding of its provenance and its range. Duncan McInnes. Firstly, I would have to say that Marine Scotland and the fishing industry had considerable dialogue over a number of years in the formation of the locations of marine protected areas, and Marine Scotland also had extensive consultation in the wider communities. Those were well attended throughout Scotland, and it was clear that, from a fishing industry point of view, there was a balance to be struck between protecting the marine environment and protecting the economic importance of the fishing industry and a clear balance had to be struck in the way forward. Marine Scotland then went out to consultation, and during the consultation process they gave their own preferred options, which very much mirrored the way forward that the fishing industry had agreed at consultations throughout Scotland, and the preferred option was a clear balance that sacrificed some fishing areas, but also made sure that it was fully compliant with the required EU regulations for protecting the features for which the sites were being designated. However, when the response to the consultation did come back, the words used by the Cabinet Secretary at the time was that it was ambitious. From a fishing industry point of view, we in the western Isles and in many other coastal communities of west coast of Scotland are all conservationists because we want to protect the marine environment. From our point of view, the approach that was proposed by the Scottish Government was in our views draconian, which would result in severe loss of jobs in many of the coastal communities, both at land and at sea. From our point of view and other witnesses can speak up for their own areas, we saw that the economic impact that was being circulated in the response that the Government had to the consultation paper was grossly underestimated. We see that the fishing industry has a shared environment between mobile and static gear operations, and the main added employment opportunities are created in scalar processing and nephrops or prone processing in those areas. We saw, for example, one area of Barra east Bingillie where the measures that are currently being proposed for those areas will be a total ban on static gear that is fishing with ports in that area. There are two vessels there that gross up to £4 million, whereas the economic impact that came from the Scottish Government was £19,000. There is clearly something seriously wrong between £19,000 and £4 million. If you look at the two vessels that were involved in that, they employ 10 local vessels, three of them in Barra, and the skipper there has said that there is no question whatsoever that I will have to sell my vessel. The other one is the newest, vivid boat in the Western Isles, employing seven local people. He says his question is the viability of that vessel. In addition to that, the proposal was to put a prohibition on set nets that are set on the seabed in all those sites. In the Western Isles, we have been on other areas of Scotland from Tyree and those islands. They have been fishing since 1978 with set nets for crayfish. Clearly, that is a seasonal basis. That was discussed at public meeting set nets and a zoning approach whereby there would be no set nets in the shallower water where the risk was greater of interaction with birds on the lake. A zoning approach and a seasonal approach were suggested. In one instance where the vessel goes to St Kilda, crayfish is the most valuable shellfish species in Scotland. That represents 40 per cent of the value of that boat that goes to St Kilda. If the vessel has a 40 per cent reduction in the catch, it will not go to St Kilda and that vessel will put additional effort on to already inshore stocks. Similarly, in Western Ross, where the... We can't go through every MPA at the moment. That's right. What I'm saying is, from a fishing industry point of view, we are conservation minded. In the Western Isles, we've been taking forward a very conservative approach and leading on conservation with a number of initiatives that have been taken forward by Scottish Government. We think that there is a way forward that can be done to accommodate the interests of the fishing industry and protect the features for which the sites are designated. We're intended to try and get to the bottom of that just now. At the moment, I don't know whether it needs all of you to answer this particular question, but the effectiveness of the consultation process that's been suggested agreed to one set of understandings. Then, when it was presented in the form of the MPAs that you saw another, is that what you agree with my reasoning here, Willie John McLean you indicated? Yes. I would just like to say a bit about the process for the small Isles MPA because I attend in a lot of meetings. We sat down with SNH and Marine Scotland. We went through things. They pointed out the features that had to be protected. The initial meeting, we weren't very happy. We went back and they had another meeting. It was well attended by fishermen and they showed the features again. It was agreed that to protect these features and to put a buffer zone around these features. There were additional areas put forward by the fishermen that they could add on to the MPAs. We thought that the process was... We left that meeting saying, yes, we can work with these people. It's good we've all come to an agreement. Then, somewhere down the line, we got informed, no, I'm sorry, we've overlooked something. The whole 800 and odd kilometres of sea habitat was back on, including the bits that we had put forward. We've never seen any video evidence of any of these features. I've asked at the meetings that I've been to and there's been no fan missiles and other missiles in sea habitat. We've never seen anything and we're a bit concerned because there's nothing to stop them in the future coming back and closing off more of the area and saying that the fishing is affecting it. We haven't seen anything. We've continually asked for video footage. There's been... ROV cameras put down since 2009 in these areas and they've checked all the features every year, year on year. They've never come back and shown us videos that because of fishing the features are in decline. We have seen nothing so I think it's very unfair to force this MPA on people that haven't seen it. I mean, the fishermen, we have a vested interest in the area and it's in our interest that we look after it and we've fished alongside these for 50 years. Thank you. We'll be hearing more from you. Kenny MacNam. I would like to make one thing quite clear. There's been talk in the press that the mobile sector of the fishing industry don't want MPAs, completely the opposite. We agreed with the concept of MPAs right at the very beginning and that's why we took part in the whole process, the consultation process. We thought it would have gone very well. I personally spent countless hours, days in meetings with Marine Scotland and other people on these MPAs and so did many fishermen who took time off their work and lost days fishing to do that. We thought we had got somewhere. We thought we had reached a position and an agreement with SNH, who are the scientific body that advises the Scottish Government. We're quite happy with the way things were going. For the minister to announce his ambition, he completely floored us after spending three and a half years on all those consultations. We all felt really let down. What areas are you talking about? I'm talking about South Arran MPA and the one from Loch Sunert, right down to the Giro Sound. Our association was only formed relatively recently. We didn't have a seat at the table through most of the MPA, certainly the initial negotiations about the MPAs, and we only really became involved at the beginning of this year at the meeting in Inverness. We don't have the same issues with the MPAs that some of the other fishing groups do, so we have no complaints with the process. We were never engaged with Marine Scotland and the MPA process from the beginning. Indeed, we only took part in the last two meetings whenever it was a done deal, and I have to accept what Kenny says there, that what these guys had signed up to had actually been changed. In other words, Richard Lochhead had moved the goalpost somewhat. He's done the same in Lochfine as well. Why were you not involved at the beginning? I think primarily because the Scottish Keele Fishermen's Federation wasn't in existence at the beginning of the due process. We've been involved right from the very start. It makes tremendous demands on an organisation which is staffed purely by volunteers, so I have a lot of sympathy for fishermen who've taken time off from the boats and everything like that because we've had to do exactly the same. In general, we've restricted ourselves on the MPA work to only look in areas within the nearshore environment rather than way out to sea because sea anglers are in the nearshore environment. In general, the process we found was fine. It had its ups and downs, but it seemed to go quite well. It was productive. It was reasonably transparent until it came to Loose Bay. We were initially shown a proposal which had Loose Bay with, if you like, a hole in the middle, which we call the Polo Model, so the mobile sector would work in the middle and the surroundings, they wouldn't. That was perfectly acceptable. That was something we could support because the periphery of Loose Bay is where sea anglers work. There are reefs there and hard rock, but then in November of last year that model was changed. It was the Polo Model to meet in I attended on the 6th of November and it changed on the 7th of November. Without any discussion, as far as I'm aware, certainly with ourselves and as far as I'm aware with no other conservation or fishing groups, I don't even know if the commercial sector were involved. That was taken down to a meeting in Loose Bay and there was another new proposal offered then, which was the preferred option, which was referred to earlier. That one wasn't found acceptable by the commercial sector there, so a new shape was formed. It seems to be a moving target and there seems to be no reason. We've had no communication as to why these changes, you know, no real explanation as to why these changes have taken place. It just seems to be that there's stuff going on in the background, which I don't know to what extent the commercial sector involved, other conservation NGOs, but all of a sudden it seems to be transparent when it was down in Loose Bay. Thank you, David Fraser. Every one of these MPAs will affect me and we did take time off and sit down with Mr Lockhead and make suggestions, which would have allowed everyone to go ahead and make a living. All the suggestions that we've made have basically been ignored. If this goes ahead, over 30 per cent of my own boat's turnover will disappear, just like that. Situation is that we've got to try and structure this so that we can get to the bottom of the matters. I've said the effectiveness of the consultation process, which we've started off on, may lead to people asking questions about that. We will be moving on to socioeconomic factors and compensation issues and so on, which might begin to answer some of those matters later on, and with particular effect on specific MPAs. I'm going to bring in Mike Russell first of all. Thank you. I just want to press the issue of the process of consultation a little bit more clearly, because I'm not entirely sure what happened. Can any of you explain what happened between the process in which you were discussing things with Marine Scotland, those who were involved in it, and felt that you were making progress in achieving an understanding and the final proposals? How long was that period? What happened in that period? What do you think took place? Because there's a big difference between the understanding from some charities, the conservation charities, about the process and the way you've described it. I just want to get your perception of what happened. When we had finished the consultation and finished, we knew that there were three options. We thought that the option that SNH had chosen and the commercial sector were happy with was what we were going to get. We weren't informed by Marine Scotland or by the cabinet secretary that anything different would be done, or we could have made more representation. We weren't informed. Why did you think that you were going to get them? What led you to assume that? Well, nobody told us otherwise. I would imagine that you see when you go out for a consultation process and you make comments on the preferred options that those have been considered by all stakeholders, and you would think that the Scottish Government would be minded to go with the preferred options that they're putting out of that consultation. Now, there has been no reason given why those preferred options clearly met all the regulations requirement of protecting the marine features, or there wouldn't have been a preferred option in the first place. There has been certainly nothing that has come across as far as I am aware to industry to say that our preferred option has now gone to option 3. The preferred option was the one that had the least economic impact on the future of commercial fisheries and gave protection to the features as well. In your experience of negotiating with Marine Scotland, is this a unique experience, or have you had previous difficulty in getting agreement, or have you had agreement, and then that's changed? I think that we need to know the context of this. I would say that I have been involved in fishing for 40 years myself. I have been assured for 25 years, and I can say that this is the worst situation that I have seen that has come through from a consultation process in all my time in negotiating with Marine Scotland since the formation of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Office prior to that. Looking back at 1984, which was one of the acts that we were talking about where various things will be managed and enforced within marine protected areas, I will give you an example of when the previous Scottish Office did not introduce something in the western isles that the fishing industry did not agree with, and that has put a total prohibition on mobile gear in broad bay. I have got photographs here that were given to me by Marine Scotland scientists, and all that is there now is starfish. At the same time, the fishing industry in the western isles agreed with the Scottish Office at the time that there would be a seasonal closure approach to the sound of barra. Similar kind of landings were coming from both areas in 1984. Nothing but starfish in broad bay now, and quarter of a million comes from sound of barra now, and that's sensible way forward. On seasonal closures, you can reduce the impact in marine protected areas with having a solo arrangement on depth. You can remove or prohibit an activity in it. That's very much in line with the interpretation of how management of those sites should be. When we went through the process, the fishermen took in their own charts. I mean, they've got vast experience of the fish night areas for 50 years. They all took in their own charts, and the boats over 15 metres are monitored by Marine Scotland. Marine Scotland had all this information, and all this was overlaid onto a chart of the proposed marine part. You can see quite clearly that the areas that were up for protection, the boats did not fish. Because of that, it was agreed that there was a bit of give and take with everyone, and that was put forward. Then it came back that it wasn't to be. We've since been asked to submit information, our VMS data and earnings and everything. It's quite difficult getting it from Marine Scotland. In the initial meetings, Marine Scotland had all this data available, and they produced it, but it seemed to be very difficult to get when we had a meeting with Mr Lockhead and he proposed that if we could put through facts and figures, they would look at it. When we approached Marine Scotland, it took weeks and weeks to get this information. I don't know. When I went up and enquired about my own VMS data, I was told that it would be a long-drawn out process to get this information. I stated that I had put down dates, years—I had gone back in my diary and my fishing diaries—and I had put down each year, each month with dates and times that I fished in that area. I thought that that would have been an easy enough information to retrieve off the computer, but I was told at the time that no, it would be awkward for them to retrieve it. That data would have proved what? It would have proved that we fished and the economic side of things, where it stated that it was only about 1 per cent, in effect we fished 20 to 25 per cent in that area. Can I just be clear? In terms of the difficulties of the Marine Scotland that you are explaining to us, there is a difficulty with the consultation, and there has also been the difficulty in the information that they have brought forward to justify the socioeconomic arguments. Well, we were given a timescale with the extended period, and because of the timescale, everyone was rushing to get new information or the information out, and it was slowing coming out. Because those socioeconomic arguments will reflect upon a question that we will deal with later, which is compensation, and it is quite crucial which of those figures is correct? Well, you can clearly see from the figures that there is paperwork put into that validate. I mean, David has indicated a third of your income, you say. On one vessel, the other one is actually nearer 50 per cent. And have you produced that data for— Yes, I have.  But it's also recorded in the VMS data because they're both over 15 metres now. My boats haven't always been over 15 metres, but you would have to trust me when I say, this has made my pattern for most of my working life. And the data from Marine Scotland in terms of what they say would be lost is not the same as yours? Not initially. I think they maybe did it from a previous year, and Michael McLeod intimated that he can see that—I'm definitely telling the truth for 2014—but before that, my boats didn't have VMS so there's no way of proving it. It's easy to prove that in 2014, 30 per cent and 50 per cent, it's quite straightforward. Steve Basterman and then Kenny McNav. Just a reflection on the process, it began as a consultative process, series of workshops, meetings, representatives from a variety of bodies, all giving their thoughts. But then the model seemed to get broken. Once it went out for consultation, it ended up as being a series of individual meetings, proposals were put forward on least economic impact to the fishing industry, as we've been told. There was no actual assessment of the impact on the sea angling industry. It became very unbalanced. What that creates is a feeling by a lot of people that there's backdoor deals being done, favouritism and all this sort of stuff. I'm not saying that there was, but that is the feeling that's created. Then you lose a lot of support for the process, you lose a lot of support for working with the Scottish Government in trying to get those things addressed. It goes off on its own way and then it comes back and there's the answer and there's a whole lot of stuff missing in between. How did you get to the answer? To finish off this series of questions, can you make a... Can I just say that we're going on about the information that Marine Scotland produced, the percentages that they produced to justify the NPAs. It's since been proved that a lot of that is flawed. It's become quite obvious since the minister announced the NPA proposals that a lot of that information is flawed. The VMS data, most... The biggest part of the fleet, the mobile sector that works in these marine protected areas are below 15 metres, so Marine Scotland have got no information on them, no VMS data. So where did it come from? Does it just pluck it out there? Do we're working with landing details and when we started questioning them on some of that information, we couldn't get straight answers. The other one was, and one of the most important ones is all of these areas, almost all of the NPAs provide shelter for boats when they're fishing. The South Arran NPA is really important to the boats in the Clyde. If you get west of Lewyn, you can fish on one side, east of Lewyn, you can fish on the other side. The size of the vessels, a lot of these vessels are under 15 metres, they're not capable of going out in bad weather, so what we have, we have developed a safety issue and all of every one of these NPAs, there's now a safety issue with the mobile fleet. When we met the minister on the 6th of July, Marine Scotland were present, I asked that particular question if safety or the weather was taken into consideration when the study was done in the NPAs on the economics, the answer I got was no, it wasn't considered. We're going to move on, I think, at the moment to Dave Thomson and then Claudia Beamish. Are you still on the consultation, convener? Yes, I think that we've heard the question. I'm still on the consultation, please. All right, the consultation. Thank you very much, convener. Could I just highlight a different perspective that hasn't been heard today because of the representation that's here and I would value any comment on it and that is from Environment Link specifically in relation to the consultation and I quote, we have made our views clear via the consultation and still maintain that the scientific evidence justifies greater restrictions in some sites. For example, we contend that the prohibition on mobile demersal gear throughout the South Arran NPA would be the most appropriate form of management. The measures therefore contain compromises and we acknowledge a progressive balance has been struck. I'm only asking for comments on that because I think it's very important that we understand that there are a whole range of organisations who have put in evidence to this consultation and maybe on the other side of the perspective, there are other views. Is this not a compromise? I ask that question. So far an NPA? Well, I'm asking the question generally. In general? Yes, that was an example. I really want a general answer to the question. About whether there are others who have put in perspectives based on the science as they see it and we haven't yet got to the socioeconomic discussion, which the convener will lead off after this, but I'm asking about the consultation process. We thought we had compromise but it didn't turn out that way. From your perspective? Yes. But from other people's perspective, they can see it from the conservation perspective, others see it as not going far enough and it's a compromise as it stands at the moment. So that's the question that I'm asking. Is there any comment on that from anyone else on the panel? Hollister Sinclair? There are many within the creole sector that find that the NPA process just hasn't gone far enough. There's an appetite to maybe reinstate the three-mile limit in the west coast, which I know is a very hot and difficult subject, but there is an appetite within the creole fishermen because the creole fishermen historically are now being pushed either up the beach because of the activity of mobile sector operators or they've been pushed further out and whenever you start moving up the beach it becomes economically unviable because you're not liable to produce a worthwhile catch in air my living and if you're forced further out to sea you're then liable to the vagaries of gear conflict where you're suffering economic loss through the loss of gear and it's gear that you can't ensure is an economic loss. There is an appetite within many on the west coast and I have to stress that that is a west coast creole fishermen's approach to what's going on and the west coast creole fishermen do have the appetite for a three-mile limit to be reinstated whilst on the east coast it's a completely different animal and the mpa process is dedicated to the west coast. What do the guys in the islands want to do, the outer hebrides, the western Isles Duncan's guys, Stuart Croydon's guys and the Orkneys and the Shetland guys, what do they want to do? I think they're looking towards autonomy to look after their own waters and I think we should welcome that notion. Okay, we've heard two sides to this already. No, we've heard quite a lot of the sides to this already at this particular point. We do want to try and get to just one or two of the things out of the way. I'm sure it'll crop up once again when we're talking about the socio-economics but the safety issue was raised there and I understand that you know you're talking about the South Arran one. Okay, I just want to deal with this because I don't think it's a massive one that we could probably hear your point of view. We've heard yours but I think Willie John McLean may have an issue about safety issues around the small Isles. Yes, and up at the Wester Cross one as well. I mean there's four boats work out of Ullapool and they're trolling and they're single-handed boats. There's only one person working these boats and in the winter time those boats depend on the area. The areas that the fish are made up of are three or four different areas and to access those areas there's small areas that they can tow through. Now these areas are closed off or will be closed off and in the winter time these small boats when the weather is poor depend on towing through these gaps in banks and that to get into sheltered areas to haul their nets and the four that I have spoken to that I've spoken to from Ullapool have said that if this goes ahead they will be finished because they can't fish in the winter time because the weather is that bad and they depend on towing through these narrow areas to get into sheltered brown corners to get out of the wind so they can haul their nets. They can tow out and they can go out into poor weather but it's really dangerous for them when they come to haul their nets so they're really depending on these areas to get back in to get into sheltered water and it's the same with our own in the small isles. I mean these islands, the position of the islands, in the winter time a lot of boats, the local boats fish around these islands because it's the only place that we can fish. If that is closed off and we don't get access to that then we will not be able to fish. I mean we couldn't fish for the first four months this year because of weather because the weather was really that severe but normally we can get out and fish in these areas. Your force in boats, I mean this is not huge industrial trawlers, this is not big big 60, 70, 80 foot steel boats, I think you have some pictures of the boats that were sent in. I mean they're not modern boats, they range from 30 years to 50, 56 years in fact, old boats and they were built to fish inshore inside the minch. We don't fish day and night, we fish the day later so in the winter time we're fishing nine o'clock till five o'clock at best but we really depend on these. I mean if these boats were to go out and something was to go wrong it would just be a disaster. I mean we really do depend on these areas, the whole community depends on these boats getting out to fish in these areas. It's as simple as that if we lose it there is boats going to leave the industry. We're talking about the safety issues, was that a sub question about the safety issues that you had Yes, because I represent south west Galloway and there are commercial fishing interests out of the Solway as I'm sure you're all aware and it is a largely nomadic fleet and one of the issues that's been raised with me very strongly on top of the perceived failings of the consultation process is this issue of safety and it's brought about by the potential displacement that is likely to come about if these MPAs are put in places they are just now. While I recognise that some of these are larger boats and more commercially orientated if you like, I would seek your opinion on whether there is actually a safety issue for these boats as well given the nomadic nature of their operations and the displacement that will come about as a result of these restrictions. That's not the socioeconomic bit and the displacement issues that we're just about to come on to but if there's a safety factor alone for the boats which Alex Ferguson's talking about we might take these things in order so that we can get some structure to this. It is related, sorry. Well it is related, they're all related. So any other safety issues? Yes, David. A huge issue with safety, if the sound of mull is closed at the moment the ferries are cancelled when the weather's that bad we can still work in the sound of mull, if that's taken away we can't go anywhere. Thank you for that. Just to be clear, you're commenting on there will be a safety issue. To what extent have you each articulated the safety issues that you're concerned about and what was the reaction to that articulation? I mean to Marine Scotland, Mr McNam's already outlined his position, but the rest of you. Blue in the face. It's always been the most important thing in the boats is a safety issue. If we don't have sheltered water to work on in the storms we can't work safely. I accept that point but what I'm asking specifically is in the discussions you've had the face-to-face discussions whether with the cabinet secretary or Marine Scotland have you specifically articulated these concerns during the MPA consideration process and what was the reaction? What we were told that we could do was move elsewhere. That was basically what we were told. There's other areas we can fish and unfortunately a lot of the areas that we are that we classed as sheltered are getting eroded because of this fish farms. I mean they are moving out of the locks and into sheltered areas and unfortunately it's the areas we fish because they need the same mud for their anchors to hold. We're losing a large part of ground to the fish farms as well and it just happens to be areas that we fish in the winter time. Our safe areas are getting condensed into a smaller and smaller area. I think you'll be able to come in on this. Thanks very much convener. Just on this point before we move on to the socioeconomic impact and so on my understanding is that when the detailed work was done with Mulligan North Wires in relation to the small isles MPA there was a lot of very detailed consideration of the tools that Willie was talking about and the implications for safety and at different weather conditions you know if it was a westerly or an easterly or whatever they could because of all the islands in that area they can move around and still be safe but am I right in thinking that the detailed work and the very detailed charts that were produced in relation to you know where the boats would work that in the final version that came out it was basically a blanket ban over big areas with with no consideration of that kind of detail and that's what has concerned folk. What I was going to say was certainly that is the marine Scotland response you can go and fish somewhere else which you know we're looking at small inshore vessels that have they're not nomadic they've localised the local communities depend on them being fishing in those areas and you know it may be all right for someone sitting at a desk in marine Scotland to say you can shift somewhere else but the practicalities of it you know just aren't really practical to you know shift to other areas because the other thing we have to realise is you know when they're looking at activities over a year that weather patterns can be very different every year and everyone knows that you know wind conditions one year are completely different from wind conditions another year and it could be that the economic impact that they were looking at in one year is completely different to another year so looking at economic impacts on that you know it has to be over a great number of years and it has to be evidence based that it's accurate as well because just before I conclude on that sound of Barra which the marines Scotland have said 30 000 now we've got landing evidence of in excess of 200 000 from that area so there's obviously something that's seriously wrong with the cross under estimation of the economic impact David yeah that's that thank you convener I think it we're moving on now to the detail on basically socioeconomic and and so on and that's that's very important there's a clear divergence of views between the sort of broad brush approach that's been approached done by Marine Scotland and the impact of I think around about 2% on the economy overall and the evidence we've heard already and also in the evidence that's been submitted to us and I would like again and forgive me for this but it's in my constituency to concentrate on the small isles situation and the potential impact in relation to that it's not just the fishermen at sea where this is a problem and I believe there's quite a number of Barra boats as well fishing the small isles so there's an impact over there and the knock-on effect there's a there's a critical mass when you're running a harbour like Malig for instance in relation to provision of ice and boat building and all of these other things that if the critical mass drops below a certain level the whole thing then collapses and if that was to happen in Malig you're not talking about half a dozen jobs here you're talking about maybe 30 or 40 or more if you take the fishermen and the knock-on effects on shore and for a community like Malig and surrounding area that's a massive job loss the equivalent yet I will do convener the equivalent let's see in Edinburgh would be 5000 jobs going and we know what happens here when a couple of hundred jobs are threatened in a factory so it's very very important we get this right and if the judgments have been made on incorrect information then we need it needs to be looked at again my point about the socio-economic argument is and the question I would like to ask if the restricted areas within let's take the small isles mpa were reduced from what there be are at the moment in terms of recommendations which I think is about 33% of the mpa if that restricted area was taken down to maybe 20% would that difference actually allow the boats to fish in the areas they need to fish in it would have to be there if it's not in the right area it wouldn't do any good I mean there's large areas there that they could say you're allowed to fish and it's out in exposed waters and we wouldn't so it would have to be the right areas that that this 20% would have to be the right areas presuming that it was in the right areas and my understanding is that the very detailed work that was done very clearly didn't allow fishing in areas where there were could be problems for the flora and fauna and the other at the middle and everything else so if those areas were excluded I mean what you're really saying what I've been told is at the moment that there's a big chunk of excluded areas including burrowed mud that don't need to be excluded because they're not achieving anything in terms of conservation but if those areas were unexcluded if you like and the boats could fish there you'd be getting well over 95% of what you were getting for so it's a matter of just a bit of detail on the management within there that needs to be dealt with to allow fishermen and the conservation thing to live happily together is that right? Well for our own fishing sector point of view at the prawns most of the features are areas that we don't fish on because they're attached to rocks and stones and steep banks and we can't fish there so if that was the areas that we're going to prohibit us from fishing then that would yes I mean it would help it would certainly help but I mean it has to be areas that the boats can fish when the weather's bad that this protected areas and I don't think at the meetings there was any of these protected species apart from burrowed mud in these areas. Can I just finish on this point convener if the proposed orders were altered then and you were able to sit down with Marine Scotland and spend a wee bit more time go back over maybe some of the work that was done to move the restricted area back to enable you to get some of these grounds back into use would you find that a valuable change in relation to this NPA? Well it would be valuable of course it would have been anything that we can get back that doesn't endanger the fishermen whether they can work away in better sheltered weather than in sheltered areas and that has to be good for us but whether we could come to the right compromise whether they would agree on the areas I would have my doubts with the way the process has gone before because I think we're hopefully moving on and things will will will be better so you're really confirming yes if you could be involved in the decision on the exact boundaries of the excluded areas with Marine Scotland and SNH you could probably get to a reasonable position in relation to Small Isles NPA without endangering the conservation aspect I would hope that that we could do something because something has to be done otherwise there's jobs jobs going to go. We understand that we're talking about the way in which they've been proposed and that there's been a delay in actually putting forward the final versions for consideration by this committee and we're just trying to dig into a little more of the issues related to that so that we're well aware when these come back and presumably the Marine Scotland and the ministers will be listening to this conversation just now and therefore you know we would expect that some of these considerations might be taken into account before they do but I've got several members of the committee including Claudia and Sarah but first of all we've got Alex who asked a question earlier you finished with your question at the moment on that. Well I didn't quite get an answer to it on the safety issue but I if you want me to move on to displacement I'm happy to do it. I think probably we had better have Jim and then yourself and then Jamie okay and then Claudia and then Sarah okay? Okay thanks very much. Willie Maclean finished where I wanted to start it off and actually just regarding the areas which it's believed that MPs were not consulted on it it would be interesting to hear from the members how that would affect the number of jobs that he mentioned. I appreciate it, it may not just be jobs on the trollers but there may be on-shore jobs the so-called multiplier effect so it would be interesting just to hear from everybody whether there would be a benefit to jobs in shorter major time regarding their own industries or the opposite. Right so we'll start off with Alasdair Sinclair on these two points. To be painting an awful bleak picture of what the initiative of MPAs is and many regard the designations of these MPAs as a very positive step forward with a view to securing inshore fisheries for the future and the communities that so rely on them. Now one of the things that hasn't been thought about or discussed here today which I think is very important must be brought to your attention is the fact that MPAs might create many opportunities for more jobs and if we're using a clean and green method like Creels we will benefit the rural communities hand diving etc will come into its own. The financial benefits that will flow through the communities can only be good and they'll not be detrimental to the communities. I understand the difficulties that the mobile sector have the fact that they're going to be displaced that's something we'll move on to in the socio-economic thing but the MPAs as a whole must be seen by this group as a very positive step forward with a view to securing the future of many of the rural communities around the coastline of Scotland. We know your point if you're right. Steve Basterman. Has been previously mentioned that there's a lot of focus on the least impact to the fishing industry. I'd just like to give everyone an idea of the sea angling industry. I think we've got a fair idea that it's growing. I'd like to repeat it if I might convene. Very briefly there are over 205,000 anglers fishing Scotland every year, sea anglers. About 150,000 of those are Scottish resident anglers. 50,000 come from the UK and about 5,000 from places like Holland, Spain and the rest of Europe. They're contributing around £160 million a year which is a not insignificant amount. The process has been, you know, I think the process is just a broken model altogether. I don't think dickering around the edges a little bit here, a little bit there will address anything. It really needs to be a cohesive MPA setup. Everybody has data. I feel what should have been involved was a comprehensive, peer-reviewed independent assessment of all the data that's put forward, whether it's sea angling, days at sea or whatever. Otherwise it's just who shouts loudest and gets the most attention. We're here to try and get a moderate and reason sort of solution to these things at the moment and shouting louder will only mean that the sound man has to turn it down. I think we've got to be very careful about making sure that we reflect the different sides of the industry, which is what we're trying to do with this panel at the moment. I can hear the points of view of the data that's held by the mobile sector, which has already been articulated. If you've got anything to add to that, Kenny McNab, then you might add to it rather than... I'm afraid I've got to respond to it. It took to what Alasdair Sinclair said, because the committee have got to understand that marine protected areas were to protect features. They have got absolutely nothing to do with fisheries management. The static sector want to use them, along with Marine Scotland, as a fisheries management tool. That's what they were not designed for. They were designed to protect features in the seabed. The committee have got to understand that. Well, you know, there's no doubt about it. We understand the points of view that you have and the points of view that the CRIOMEN have. The question about whether there's a protection of stocks is something that we will investigate. You say that, but we need to have a definitive view from Marine Scotland about whether they see that. Thank you for your point of view. Duncan MacKinnis briefly. Just on the shared marine environment, we have what we consider to be a balanced fleet that has been sustainable. We've got a CREAL fleet. We're the largest association with static gear members in the whole of Scotland. We've been at the leading edge of conservation. One of the things we've been asking Marine Scotland for the last 10 years is to introduce a port limitation scheme. We're seeing light at the end of the tunnel. We're not wanting to see more CREALs going to the sea. I was a fisherman myself. I started fishing with 240 ports. I finished 15 years later with 750 ports. If I was still at sea today, I'd been needing 2,000 ports to catch the same amount as I got. We have to have a sensible balance on the way forward on having a shared, successful and sustainable marine environment for the benefit of all industries. We're looking at a marine environment and seeing marine renewables coming in. We're seeing increased fish farming, larger fish farming in. They're wanting their own section on the seabed. With marine planning ahead of us, it's right and proper that we should have discussion on protecting marine features within the overall framework of future marine planning. As I said previously, no fisherman is wanting to destroy the marine environment. They've shared that marine environment for the last 50, 60 years. Those marine features are there. It's not as if the fishermen have destroyed the marine environment. They've been fishing at it commercially and shared that marine environment for a generation, really. Looking at fragile communities like the West Coast communities from the Clyde all the way up to Cynllogberwy, we're now faced with a dilemma on how we take forward the management. No one's against marine protected areas. It's the management of marine protected areas that needs to be sorted out. At the moment, there seems to be a clear difference of opinion on the way that that management should be concluded. I think that there is a way forward on it and it does need more discussion with stakeholders. It needs more discussion. If I look at your own MSP, Angus MacNeill has seen the seriousness of this and has written to the islands minister to make sure that we don't move quickly into making a final decision on marine protected areas without having the full picture of the way to go forward. I would stress caution to the committee that there is a way forward but it has to be done with full consultation before we take that step. I understand your position. I wonder if you could comment on the necessity to bring in an emergency order for the Wester Ross MPA when it was alleged that dredging was taking place in the voluntary exclusion zones of the Wester Ross MPA by the Shyrwch III SY85 on 31 July and 1 August. How that squares with your assertion that you are interested in maintaining the marine infrastructure? I am quite free to discuss the incident that was involved on that game question. The skipper made a full statement to the fishery office in Ollipol that there was a total misunderstanding in the different zoning that was in that area. There was a zoning approach that scallop reaching kept deeper than 20 metres yet there was one zone that had a total prohibition in it. There were seven different zones. Marine Scotland did not have the courtesy to send details of those voluntary measures to the scallop vessels that had scallop entitlements, which in my opinion should have done. That vessel was unaware that he had a fishery cruiser beside him that Saturday morning. The fishery protection vessel did not tell him that he was operating in a voluntary closed area. The vessel, the area in question, where he was fishing, did not go shallower than a depth of 30 metres that morning. He was well within the agreed 20-metre zoning. He has requested information of Marine Scotland to show evidence that he caused any damage in that area, and that photographic evidence has not been returned to it. It was a total misunderstanding and that has been sent to Marine Scotland. If everyone in life does not misunderstand something, I think that everyone here would be empty. If you look at a misunderstanding or an interpretation of what is available. That is one case of the MPA being impinged upon in some way. There are Northern Ireland boats that have been implicated and others in the same place, and evidence of that has mounted up. Whatever happened, the question fundamentally was about looking after the marine environment, and there are breaches of that by mobile gear boats. The purpose of this inquiry just now is to make it clear that it is not all black and white, but I thank you for your explanation about that. Alasdair Houston has a point of view on that as well. I am afraid that I must take issue with the evidence that was invented by Duncan MacKinnon. I was made aware of the incursion into the voluntary zone by the Shearick 3 within probably 15 or 20 minutes of it happening. There were phone calls from local residents who had been outtaking photographs of the vessel. Within half an hour, I had these photographs by email, and it was decided between myself and some of the local residents that if it was to be proven that this infraction had taken place, then we must get evidence on the seabed because we were aware that the vessel may well have been just stowing as dredges below the boat, they may not have been on the seabed. So it was decided and it was arranged that a local vessel would take me out to the area, and I would dive on it, which occurred on the Tuesday, I believe. I dived in the area, I found the dredge marks on the seabed, the shallowest point of the dredge marks was 19 metres, and I have video evidence of that, which has been submitted to Marine Scotland. I wanted to clarify that these things happened and that that did happen, and that there may be different interpretations of what happened, but the fact is that mobile gear, Fisherman dredger in this case, created a situation where the NPA was brought forward earlier than it might have been, and that was because of their behaviour. So we have to deal with situations where these things happen, and we want to try and make sure that we get to a situation where everyone actually understands what their duties are and that they actually apply them as well as they can. First of all, Claudia Beamish, Sarah Boyack and Jamie McGregor. Can I focus briefly on the Scottish Fisherman's Federation's socio-economic analysis, which is the scoping effect that focuses particularly on kintire in the first case study, but to broaden it out, both that and the other case study presented by the Scottish Fisherman's Federation, they do not, in my view, having read them with great care, focus on the future generations. There is very clear argument about depopulation or very fragile coastal communities, which is the reason, of course, that we are very keen to hear your evidence today. I would like comment from any panel members who would like to say anything about the relationship between sustainable fish yields and the development of areas for juvenile fish, for instance, or any other issues that bear relevance to this, and I would also stress in relation to your comment, Kenny, earlier, about the management that, in my view, by understanding of the MPAs and the orders, is that the reason for any fishing management is, in this case, for the MPAs actually to protect and enhance for future generations, which is, in all our interests, the protected features and the protected habitats. I think that it is very important that we bring this into the equation of the socioeconomic issue, because we know of places across the globe, and I have evidence of it here in a living blue planet report by WWF International of places across the globe where there are fragile communities that can no longer fish. I do not want to be too dramatic about this, but it is partly about protecting the sustainable seas per se, but it is also about future generations in fragile communities, and I would value some comment on that. I live in Tarbott in Kentire, and there are three fishing communities in Kentire—Carmillton, Caradil and Tarbott. Tarbott is probably the most dependent fishing. I am pretty passionate about it. We have got about 50 full-time fishermen in Tarbott. Even if three boats, three scallop boats are affected, two from Caradil and one that is watched from Nile and the Ling, all our scallops are processed in a factory in Tarbott and two factories in Tarbott. Those guys, because of the south end are in the NPA and the closures in the sound of Jura, are considering packing it in. If the factory in Tarbott closes, or the two factories in Tarbott, small factories, you are talking about between 12 and 15 jobs. With the fishermen included, it could be over 30 jobs. We have the same scenario that Dave mentioned here in Malik earlier. That equates to 2.5 per cent of the employment in Tarbott. That equates with 17.5,000 jobs in Glasgow. If that happened, I am quite sure that the Scottish Government would react to it fairly quickly. However, we see the community of Tarbott being decimated because all those jobs are held by people with young families. People will not wait in rural communities unless they have a full-time job. Part-time jobs will leave and go to the central belt. What will happen in Tarbott, the school role at the moment, is just borderline for closure. If half a dozen of those families leave with young children, the school will close, or Gylemwhip Council will close it. If that happens, the community dies. It becomes a retirement home for old people. We do not want to see that. At the moment, the community is sustainable. Many people have said, from the south end of Arran, that loads of jobs will be created. In fact, I think that cost stated that 2,700 jobs can be created by ecotourism, which you are probably hinting at. Ecotourism has been tried over the years in our area. I was not hinting at that. I was not hinting at anything. I was simply saying specifically about fishermen and fish women, if there are, being able to fish in future generations in your fragile communities. That was the point that I was making. We know that it is sustainable at the moment, and we want to keep it that way. It is at a level where it is sustainable. The fleet over the past number of years, there is only about a third of the boats that there were in the 1980s and 1990s. The fleet has completely dropped, but the point that I want to make about ecotourism jobs is that, on the west coast of Scotland, look at the weather we get. Ecotourism jobs take up three or four months of the year. That is part-time jobs. Young families will not wait in the area for part-time work. They will move to the central belt. Part-time ecotourism jobs are not going to take the place of full-time work. Sustainability. The last six days before I came here, I fished in an area and discovered a scallop bed that I found in 1990. I caught 4,760 kilograms of scallops working just daylight hours. That is five tonnes in old money. Some of those scallops have been eaten in super restaurants in Oben already. The rest have gone to London and Europe. How is that not sustainable? This is somewhere that I discovered in 1990. That is 28 years ago. That is sustainability. It is very important, of course, and that is why we are here today to consider the sustainability of jobs, fragile communities and the risks of depopulation. What I am saying to you is that if the MPAs are protecting the future of these areas, it is very possible that changes might jeopardise the future for the next generation. I am asking you what consideration there has been taken of that, because in the Scottish Fishermen's Federation economic analysis, I do not see that. That is what I am asking. I respect the fact that they need to be done as well. The economic figures that have been given were not accurate. I am talking about the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, but I do not see that analysis there. That is just my view. I cannot speak for the federation. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation made a clear reference that it was a short summary that it had done. It was a short space of time that it had to develop. Six weeks, it had to develop what was clearly a huge task. That is just the start of a process. However, looking at fragile communities, if you look at Bara, for example, the factory in Bara employs 40 full-time people, not part-time, in the summer it is higher. It provides summer employment for students. There are eight trawlers from Bara fishing off Malik. All young skippers with young families, if they are going to leave that decimate Bara, look at used 30 jobs there in scallop processing supplying 50 per cent of the raw material there. I look at Stornoway where I live myself, Macduff shellfish that have the prawn processing plant there. That plant has been there since 1960, definitely sustainable. I have seen Stornoway with industries coming and going. Harry's tweet went and came back. Arnish fabrication yard has come and gone several times and yet the prawn processing factory has stayed there for the best part of 60 years. It is sustainable at current levels of ever. The marine features that we are talking about and discussing are there despite alongside and in harmony with what has been going on. Why take away the traditional industry that has been working in harmony? Let's work together and get the balance that will marry the two together for the future benefit of everyone, the marine environment and the communities? There are questions about the potential for the stock existing well into the future at that level. That is something that we cannot bottom out at this particular meeting, but Claudia Beamish's question has heard the answers around the table here, Steve Basterman's next, and then we've got to move on very quickly. The sustainability of a single stock, whether it's scallops, mackerel or whatever, does not indicate a healthy and diverse marine environment. That indicates a monoculture. That is one of the biggest threats that you've got to developing tourism for sea angling. Sea angling tourism on to the west coast is not just a three or four month activity. It's a round of the year activity because there are different species at different times of the year that are fish for. It makes a substantial amount of money into local communities. It could make more, but for it to make more, the environment must be diverse. Sea anglers can't catch scallops. Allie Husson hasn't had a say on that. I think that we've heard both sides on this particular point, but Allie Husson just now… I'd like to make the point from the point of view of the members of the Scottish Scallop Divers Association that marine protected areas, whether we strike a balance or not, well, in our experience, undoubtedly increase economic activity in our sector. I'd just like to make that clear. Okay. Thank you for making that clear. We have to get Sarah Boyack, then Jamie MacGregor and then Mike Russell. Well, we've been dealing with the members of the committee and you will certainly get your chance to ask questions, like everyone else. Okay, Sarah Boyack. I want to ask for comments on one of the pieces of evidence that we've had submitted which is around the South Arran NPA. It really follows on that last discussion about different types of fishing and what evidence we have. This committee has certainly discussed the issue around South Arran for the best part of a decade on and off now, and we do have quite a lot of evidence. I wonder for people's views on the impact and insure fisheries of the NPA in South Arran, because we've had quite positive evidence submitted to the committee and I just wanted to test that out among the various members on the panel in front of us. Okay. The smaller fishing, presumably. Can you just clarify for me, Kenny McNabb, just before you do, how many of the boats out of Tarbot and Caradale are above the 150 tonne marr? Was that to me or to Kenny McNabb? I don't think we've got any. The 150 tonne for the prontrol in the Clyde. I think it was a 120 tonne for the Clyde. There might be one over the 120 tonne. Somewhere in that area, yes. To answer Sarah Boyack's points, please. Regarding the South Arran NPA, when we discussed with Marine Scotland, we really went into great detail to try and protect the merl beds that were identified around the south end of Arran. We had given up the scalloped guys who were present at the meetings and gave up a rather large chunk of where the earner is living in the consultation. As it turned out, it has now stopped the scalloped regent's band altogether. All the scalloped grounds in the south end of Arran have been in the proposal. There will be no scalloped regent. It's a big issue for particularly two of our members, two votes in membership for the CFA who are based in Caradale. The biggest issue is that it's the weather factor, the safety one, because they use that area for protection at all times. You've only got to look at that and it's stuck right in the middle of the Clyde and it gives you protection. It doesn't matter what way the wind does, you get protected somewhere. The skipper has commented to me on a number of occasions. I think that he's in the Observer Group here that it's quite frightening at times if he's fishing on the Ayrshire coast and he's got to go towards the south end of Arran to get protection from north-west wind or westerly wind to get there and he's not allowed to fish when he gets there. In the winter it's a short day. You've only got maybe eight, nine hours a day light. By the time he gets across there, half the day is away, what does he do? In that area, in the winter time, he's maybe no more than a fortune but he's keeping the wheels turning and the boys are getting a wage every week until the weather gets better and he can go and fish somewhere else. That opportunity has been taken away from him, both him and his young son, Skipper's Heller boat. He's looking at a loss of maybe between 13 and 40 per cent that he's grossed for the year. Sarah, do you want to come back? The question was about the impact that we've had from the no-take zone in Lamblash Bay and the fact that there's quite a lot of research from coast over the last few years. Given what's being proposed for South Arran, I was trying to test out the issue of inshore fisheries in terms of protected features, whether it has made a difference and what people think about the process of consultation on the South Arran proposals, whether people are happy with them or not. We're certainly not happy with them. No, because it now includes a large area of burrowed mud that was not in the first consultation. The prone boats are now affected, who were not affected in the first place. However, as far as the no-take zone is concerned, I was involved right from the very beginning in dealing with the no-take zone. The coaster tells us that there's improvements in the no-take zone. I'm not surprised at that. I'm not surprised at it at all, not in the least. They say that it will move to outside the no-take zone, but we're not seeing any vast difference outside the no-take zone. I believe that Albarnamara, Marine Scotland Science, is doing trials this week. We'll be quite happy to hear what the science is on that, when they've done it, because then that will be science that we can listen to. It will be independent science done by Marine Scotland, because other people produce science sometimes and it's maybe biased. We're hearing you. Duncan McInnes is on this point. I'm just following on from what Sarah Boyack makes reference to a no-take zone. Our experience, as I said earlier, is broad bay in Lewis. It would be useful for the committee to have some research done in broad bay in Lewis. I would say that there is a no-take zone since 1984. The evidence is when Marine Scotland Science did go in and investigated what happened in the area. It was a prolific scallop area.  It'll be full of fish by now. It's clear that that didn't happen. I think that the committee should take on board evidence that Marine Scotland has of what an area that was. I would say that it did become a no-take zone, because there's no mobile gear activity in it for over 30 years now. If we're wanting the marine environment just to be only starfish and nothing else, I'm pretty sure that Lam Lash Bay or one of those or whichever base, you'll start seeing starfish appearing after a few years, but then starfish will become the main predator and there'll be very, very little left. I'll leave for members of the committee. It's Marine Scotland's report of what's in broad bay after 30 years of a no-take zone, so I think that it would be useful before we create other no-take zones to have a look at what we have created with a previous administration 30 years ago. I think that we're talking about very different terrains here. I'm not acting photographic evidence. It's not just starfish. We really, for the record, we do need to have that clarified. With all due respect, after how many years? Okay. That is something that we cannot discuss here. We're discussing the MPAs as they are, so we're going to come back to Jamie McGregor as an addition to the committee for today. I've seen the damage that starfish can do to muscle farms, but we've listened to a lot of points made by different people and I very much respect all of the different sectors of the fisheries that are here today. I'd like to see everyone catch—see anglers can catch fish and the prawn trawlers can still go on, the dredgers can still go on, and with sustainability. I'm an MSP for Highlands and Islands and I have had more concerns expressed to me over this particular consultation and I think anything else that I've ever had to do with fisheries. It appears that fishermen were led to believe throughout the consultation period that measures would be proportionate and would stick to the protection of specific marine features. Kenny McNab made the point that MPAs are there to protect features and they're not a management tool for fisheries and I think that's got to be convener. You've got to look into that because there's nobody here from Marine Scotland who could answer that point today. Have you a question? Yes, I do. The other thing is that the broad brush economic figures seem to fail to capture in detail the significant economic impact on different fishing vessels and it appears that people will lose their livelihoods. My concern is jobs and in reference to the scallop fishing particularly somebody made the point that divers produce scallops but only I think about 1% of all the scallops that are eaten in Scottish restaurants are actually caught by divers. So how are we going to keep this scallop industry going? You can't catch them in creels either. So if you don't have scallop dredging how are we going to keep this significant industry going for Scotland? I'm sorry to bring this to the table but I think Jamie Shure had declared an interest in the sense that he has an attachment to the Clyde Fisherman's Association and speaks often on their behalf. Convener, I am an honorary vice president of the Clyde Fisherman's Association. Right, okay but you've asked a question so have we any answers to that? Thank you for that clarification. Thank you. Do you have a point there? Nobody is suggesting stopping scallop dredging in Scottish waters. We would contend that proportionate MPAs allowed to recover would contribute to the scallop dredging as well as to the diving. I'd just ask a question of Allister if MPAs go ahead in the form that they are being proposed. I would imagine diving for scallops will increase. I know for a fact that there are times of the year Allister when you find it difficult to sell dive scallops and you've got to store them. Would you see a reduction in the price of your scallops if the diving fishery increased and your market would struggle? It's certainly possible that there would be an increase in the number of vessels and the number of scallop divers and therefore an increase in the amount of scallops on the market. Simple economics dictates that if there's more on the market and the demand hasn't increased then the price would have to drop. I think that's without question. It's not something that we would like to see but it would be inevitable but I would like to say that in our experience the increase in the number of scallops available for scallop divers to put on the market would be very marked. It would be a large increase. We're not talking small increases here over the medium to long term. I think that we could be very careful about cross-samining each other here. We are asking the questions. I will make a comment that obviously people who catch lobster save them up in tanks for the Christmas market so there are various different kinds of ways in which that and the bottom fell out at the Christmas market in Europe when we had the bank crashes. Those things crop up. There are changes in these sorts of things. Without any further cross-examination at the moment, Jamie had you another point. I was trying to get to this bit about the scallop. What would keep all these new restaurants that we've got in Scotland on the west coast who serve all of them scallops? Who would they get their scallops from if the dredging industry? Can I just say that having recently engaged with four Michelin star chefs south of the border, we have decided upon embarking upon an initiative where we will be able to sell as many hand-dive scallops as we can possibly get with a view to selling not only south of the border but also selling into Europe. There is an appetite because of the good story that hand-diving is and the good story that creel fishing is. I think that Kenny's question, whilst some merit hasn't been properly thought out, because we have discussed huge levels of hand-dive scallops going abroad and this initiative has only happened in the past week. The point that I was making is that only 1% of the scallops that are now landed in Scotland come from hand-diving. 99% of the ones come from other methods. We are hoping to increase that 1% to maybe 5% or 6%, which is huge involvement. It's still going to leave a huge hole if you don't have any. That's the point that I'm making. With two other people I'm going to bring in here and then bring in Mike Russell. So, Willie John McLean and then Steve Basterman. It's entirely about scallops, but we would have the same problem with prawns because I sell to a prawn factory that's 40 miles down the road. They employ 80 people and 50% of their product comes from our area, so they would struggle if they didn't get their raw produce. Indeed, and Steve Basterman. I repeat the point that MPAs aren't just there to meet the financial needs of the fishing industry. There are a lot of other people, recreational and tourist industries, which have an interest in the marine environment. Mike Russell. I point. There has been some criticism of this committee for holding a session in which it heard from this group of witnesses rather than a wider group of witnesses. Of course, the reason for doing so is because I think it's fair to say that this session is not about MPAs per se, and everybody has accepted and most welcomed the MPA process. It is about the issue of boundaries and management and how they're implemented. I think that if you were interested in that, you'd come to the end of the session pretty depressed because I'm somebody that likes compromise and the ability of people to work together, and there hasn't been much sign of it. I just want to ask a very simple question, because it seemed to me from what I hear that the weight of opinion coming from the public is very much in favour of conservation of the areas in question. That means that further compromise is going to be needed if there is to be any consensus at all. What is that compromise for each of you? I suspect that the convener will insist on a brief answer, probably he should. What is the outcome that you want to see? How realistic is that, and what can you do to achieve it? At the present moment, it looks as if the divisions are still pretty great, and that will continue to create difficulties for everybody involved in this. I think that the way ahead has got to be spatial management. We have to separate the mobile guys from the static guys, and you win on more than one occasion here because you create that healthy, creel industry supporting community, and you also create within those spatially managed areas, areas where the science universities, et cetera, et cetera, can have their young students come out, do research, work with a view to securing better ideas for the future, and getting away from best guess science. Duncan McInnes. Certainly on the way forward is a sowning approach that has buffer sowns around those marine features. It can and easily done by depth, seasonality, we operate in the western islands, seasonal closures that have been very successful for the last 30 years, seasonal closures, limit activity, and the words that we were needing to look at was remove and prohibit, which we do by a depth sowning, those features. Merl, for example, is all under 30 metres SNH have confirmed that, so sowning depth to protect those features, looking at sex nets in all those marine protected areas. Marine Scotland have come with a clear policy, a total prohibition on sex nets. There should be a seasonal approach to when sex nets are there, and a depth level where they couldn't be set to reduce the entanglement possibility at shallower depths. I think that a sowning approach by depth, seasonal variations, will reduce prohibit and remove and limit. We're already spoken about limitation on harsh tonnage of vessels, which will reduce the impact of large vessels in those sites. Certainly within the Barra SAC they're talking about a weekend ban in that area, which further reduces effort in that area, have a night-time curfew as an innovative way of reducing effort in that area. There are ways of managing those fisheries for the benefit and reducing effort, and it would be a win-win for everyone, I would say. He's brought this to the table where it looks like a static year and troll conflict, and it's not. There's very little research done into creals. There's been no surveys done, no research. They're one of the most unregulated fisheries in Scotland. I'm disappointed with that. Just a minute. The committee has dealt with a Loch Torridan situation, and we're well aware of the questions that arise there. Zonal management and so on, and indeed effort, have all got to be fixed in order for that to work. We're aware of that, but we've got to be careful about accusing individuals across the table of a particular point of view. We're here to decide, and I thank you for that, but we understand the situation a little more. I must apologise, but it does seem unfair. I would like us to carry on with the process that we started with Marine Scotland's SNH, if there was more transparency. If we could see videos, and then just what Dave said, we could surely agree, because there is room for everyone to survive. Those areas that are pointing out those special features, the fishing doesn't impact on them. If they were to put large buffer zones around them, around the areas that they want to protect, and read gateways, the boats up in Westeros and in our own areas could go from one town to the other, so they didn't have to haul their nets and safety wasn't going to be an issue. Surely we could sit down and discuss those things and get them sorted out. Dialogue, because it is something that everyone, regardless of everyone with their own opinions, is something that everyone here wants. It's just a way of joining it all together. Steve Basterman, Kenny McNab and then Dave Thomson for a final point. Just to go back to your original point, Michael. I agree that we should go back and revisit it, but it shouldn't be revisited in bits and pieces one set here, one set there. Have a full independent assessment.  Kenny McNab. I never thought that I would agree with somebody from England. I think that we have got to get to a stage where a proper socio-economic study is done, not just for the sake of the communities who are involved. This is something that should have been done in the beginning and it wasn't done. It's the part of the whole jigsaw that was lacking, and that's why there's been so much uproar about it. As far as we see it, the proposals should be amended and we go back to consultation. We're opposed to the point that, if they were amended, they have to go out to consultation, so that's going to prolong the process of any adoption of MPAs, because if there are changes from what's been proposed at the moment, there will be that opportunity to discuss this all in great detail again. Dave, if you can focus on one point that we haven't already dealt with. Yes, thank you convener. It really has to draw this to be closed. Yes, absolutely. It was really just to make the point that I've had a number of representations made to me from Criel Fisherman, who are actually worried about some of the proposals because of the displacement of the prawn trawlers into areas where they are currently laying their creals. The current proposals point I'm making is that there are many Criel Fishermen who don't agree with them, and if the trawlers are pushed out, they create all sorts of conflict and other unintended consequences, so it was just to put a wee bit of balance in, I think, more a comment than a question, unless Alasdair wants to come back on it. Yes, Mr Sinclair. I've heard from many Criel Fishermen that they've been told by mobile operators that they're going to be hemmed into the MPAs, which is not a good situation. We do hope that we can manage the MPAs in such a way that it doesn't create the honeypot effect, that Torridon created at the outset of that initiative. However, gear conflict, as we all know, is a problem that exists from the saw way to the tweed, because it extends out to 20 miles offshore, blah, blah, blah. I hear where you're coming from, but there are many forward-thinking Criel Fishermen out there that think that displacement should not be an issue, and if there was more good will out at sea, which I wish there was personally on itself, there wouldn't be gear conflict, and we could become the brothers-in-arms that some have previously alluded to as maybe becoming. I think that we're going to stop at that point. You have all had a fair round of opportunity to comment. I'd like to thank you for that. We hope that the exploration of the issues around the MPAs will lead the Marine Scotland and the Government to hear what's been said by these very detailed views, with the offer to provide more facts and figures if required. We believe that they'll be listening to this because the Government agreed for us to have this session to hear those views so that the views can be taken on board. I'd like to thank the witnesses very much. It's been a big help to us, and we, of course, will be discussing these matters in private. We're going to have a short suspension so that everyone can leave the room fairly quickly. We have other business in public to deal with and also private business after that. So thank you very much, everybody, and I suspend for a minute or two. Agenda item 4, which is subordinate legislation, the fourth items for the committee to consider the negative instrument as listed on the agenda, i.e. Reservoirs Scotland amendment regulation 2015, SSI 2015-315, I refer members to the paper. Are there any comments about this? There are no comments, as far as I can see. So I ask the committee, are you agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to this instrument? We are agreed, are we? We are agreed, thank you very much. We're agreed, we will make no comments about this. Future meeting details, the next meeting of the committee in the 30th September, we'll be considering parts 8 and 6, the Land Reform Scotland bill, on deer management and sporting rates. As agreed earlier, we will now move into private session. Thank you very much.