Good morning everyone and welcome to the 9th meeting in 2017 of the rural economy and connectivity committee. Could I remind everyone pleased to put their mobile phones on silent. No apologies have been received, so we're going to move straight on to the agenda item 1 which is to consider brexit and its implication on fisheries. It's going to be a round table discussion to discuss the implications of the outcomes of the EU referendum for Scotland. This is the first in a series of sessions that the committee will undertake today, and we're particularly focussing today on fisheries. Now what I propose to do is, as a round table discussion, is to go round the table and ask everyone to introduce themselves. I would like to point out to those people who haven't been to a committee meeting before, the committee is supported by a clarking team, the official report, and the gentleman over there who, when I nod at him, will cut Maen nhw'n gwestiwch os chi i chi'n tu-long wedi ei chweithio. Ieithaf y gweld y tableau, wedi bod ni'n gwasanaeth y llwg ddweud i'r ddechrau eu chogleddau i chi yn mynd ar ein sgiliau. Felly tu, hynny, dyna o'n gweithio i'r ysgiliau. Wedyn ydym wedi'r sgiliau honno Edward Mountain, a i ddweud hwnnw i ddweud i'r reginell. Hwnnyd i'r chyfyddiadau i ddweud i'r reginell. I am Shadow, a Rural Economy and Connectivity Shadow Cabinet Secretary. Bertie Armstrong, chief executive of the Scottish Fisherman's Federation, which is the trade association that looks after a large portion of the catching sector in Scotland. I am Mary Evans and I am an SNP MSP for Angus North and Mearns. Good morning. I am Michael Bates. I am the group manager for the Scottish Seafood Association based in Peterhead. We are a membership organisation representing the fish processing sector. Jamie Greene MSP, Conservative regional MSP for the west of Scotland and party spokesman on connectivity. Morning. Scott Lansborough and the chief executive of the Scottish salmon producers organisation. That's the salmon farmers. Good morning. John Finnie, green MSP for the Highlands and Islands. Morning. Rwy'n gwybod, SNP MSP for Oddingston and Belsong. Mike Rumbles, I am the Liberal Democrat MSP for the north-east of Scotland and the spokesperson for everything on this guiding. Robin Churchill, Professor Emeritus of International Law University of Dandy. Stuart Stevenson, SNP member, Bamshire and Buchan Coast. Callum Duncan, I am the head of Conservation Scotland for the Marine Conservation Society. Rhoda Grant, Highlands and Islands, Labour MSP. Alasdair Sinclair, National Coordination Data for the Scottish Crio Fish and Miss Federation. John Mason, MSP for Glasgow Shetleston. Gail Ross, SNP constituency MSP for Caithness, Sutherland and Ross and deputy convener of this committee. Thank you. We seem to have got round well. I hope that during the course of the discussions and we've split this discussion section up into themes that you will all sort of try and look towards me so I can try and bring you in. The aim is to bring you all in to make you feel included. So try and catch my eye and what I would also urge is that if you feel you're going on for a bit of time, try and catch my eye as well because I may want to stop you. And that saves me calling you out and asking you to reduce what you're saying. So if you could do that and it really is meant to be a chance for everyone to have the opportunity to say something. So the first theme that we'd like to investigate as part of the committee is the benefits of being part of the common fisheries policy and the EU. John, you had a question which you thought might stimulate discussion on that. I could try that. I'm not an expert on fishing so you can take it. I'm a lay person in this area but I hear different things about the common fishery policy. I hear some people saying it's the worst thing that ever has been. I'm going totally rid of it and there's nothing to learn from Europe. And I hear other people saying if it wasn't for the common fisheries policy there would be no fish left in the sea. So is it entirely good? Is it entirely bad or is there anything we can take from it? Who would like to... Bertie, I'm quite concerned about you. But I'm sure you're the right person to lead off. Thank you, Ms Gibbiner. I take your comments about brevity and keeping an eye on control.  It's two problems as far as to approach it from a slightly different angle. It's two problems are it allows common access, common grazing to our waters. That was the norm when we entered the EU. Everybody fished everywhere, aside from the territorial limits, and there were no quotas. That was perpetuated and has created a great disadvantage. The second point is the difficulty of organising this sort of thing between 28 going on 27 member states. It is, and I could produce evidence as long as your arm, the CFP operation is an uncomfortable stumble towards compromise. Nothing happens quickly, so there are much better ways of doing that. Having said that, it, of course, within those constraints and our enormous personal disadvantage in this land, it has. At the same time that the CFP existed, capacity has just about right-sized itself and the fish stocks for the last... since the turn of the millennium have been going very much in the right direction and fishing mortality, which was far too high, is coming down. It's the wrong process for us and we'd be much better out of it. On the other hand, it has not been a complete disaster recognising that we are hugely disadvantaged and that it is a very cumbersome and wrong process to run a sea area. Stuart, you wanted to come back on that. Speaking as a politician, the CFP has presented some challenges in the way that it makes decisions. If the parties that were around the table making decisions were limited to those states that have fishing interests, it would have made rather more sense than we had a period, for example in the not hugely distant past, when the commissioner was an Austrian, a country without any maritime interests of any kind. That has made the decision making process unnecessarily cumbersome. It has exposed the decision making process to the political risk that countries who have no direct stake in fishing have used their influence in the decision making around the common fisheries policy as a trade-off for entirely unrelated matters. That has slowed things down and led to suboptimal outcomes. From a politician's point of view, that would be one of the starting places for saying that, in its present form, the CFP is not fit for purpose. Mary, did you want to come back with a question? It was just on some of the things that you talked about before we entered the CFP. It was really just to get a bit more information about historically what that position was like and how the fish stocks were doing at that time as well when it was just essentially a free-for-all for people fishing in each other's waters and just to get a bit more information. There's an easily traceable story which can quickly be scanned across. In the beginning, everyone thought to really generalise that the sea was a bottomless pit of resource and that we should have at it with the greatest of alacrity, which is roughly what happened. The war intervened and fishing lessened, so stocks increased. There was a phenomenon known, and we have a subject matter expert in the gallery here, there was a phenomenon known as the Gadoid Outburst, which to cut a long story short again meant there was an awful lot of fish in the northern continental shelf, so everybody had at it with a will. Under those circumstances, it was basically a free-for-all and the inevitable happened. We had to one way or another arrive at an arrangement, but by that stage it was too late for us. The way the international community again to hugely generalise, the way the international community went about this was to put somebody in charge, which was the coastal state in whose waters this resource lay. It was too late for us. The coastal state for us was the European Union with all the problems that Stuart has just described of vested interest.  Thanks, Edward. Clearly, we all want to get to healthy seas with sustainably managed stocks. That requires collaboration, that supports thriving coastal communities, that has to respect environmental and ecosystem limits. That's the important outcome from our perspective. In terms of getting there, we mustn't throw the baby out with a bathwater. There's a lot of good outcomes and articles within the common fisheries policy. Let's not think about completely starting from scratch. There's a lot of good in there. As Bertie alluded to, reform management has led to the industry coming on board and the Scottish Fleet particularly taking some progressive measures.  We've gone from 90 per cent stocks being overexploited in 2005 to 47 per cent now. Other good elements I'd like to point out in the CFP are things like article 4, an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management, an integrated approach to managing fishing within ecologically meaningful boundaries. It's these aspirations that we need to take forward. Article 17, I'm sure we all support that in terms of setting, transparent and objective criteria to meet environmental, social and economic benefits. We'd like to see the end of wasteful discards. There may be better ways to do that, but we all agree that's a good thing. We're probably world-leading regulations to protect the deep sea, some of the most vulnerable ecosystems on earth. The deep sea access regime, which finally came through in 2016, is protecting vulnerable ecosystems deeper than 800 metres and some shallower than 400 as well. A lot of hard work has gone into getting the elements of the CFP to deliver collaborative management within ecosystem limits. That's whatever our arrangements are. I think that we can all agree that's where we want to get to. I think that it's interesting and maybe people will want to develop whether the conservation and the work that they're doing to stop the over-exploitation of fish species is being led by the EU or the fishermen or both.  Thank you. It's worth bearing in mind that the common fisheries policy is not just about the catching side but also about marketing, trade and structural aid. I assume that the main interest today is on the catching side. To come back to the original question, I think that it's probably fair to say that up until 2010 at least the common fisheries policy was a complete disaster in managing stocks. The commission admitted that itself in a paper published in 2009 when it said that most stocks are being fished at unsustainable levels. The reasons for that in brief are that total allowable catches were set by politicians way above the limits recommended by scientists from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. There was often poor enforcement. There was a large amount of overcapacity in EU fleets. In other words, there was more vessels and more catching power to catch the fish than was justifiable on any economic scale. It's taken a long time to try and reduce capacity. There are some indications that since the common fisheries policy was reformed in 2013 that the management has improved. There seems to be a better correlation now between total allowable catches and scientific recommendations. John, did you want to... That kind of theme and quotas were mentioned that before we were in the EU and the common fisheries policy there weren't quotas and so I suppose again as a lay person my fear would be if we're out of it, is there a danger it does become a free for all again and there's no control. Who would like to go on that but Bertie would you like to... Very briefly. I don't think there is a fear of that. Sorry, I don't think that's... If we handle this properly, I don't think there's a possibility of that. We've just come from a study visit to Norway and their central top overriding priority is stock sustainability because all other goods, all other good things fall from that. We should take a leaf firmly out of that book in retaining the good bits of the CFP that should be the central aim. What was emphasised this morning at the seminar was the fish are actually in our EEZ long story, very short. They're zonally attached to our EEZ so there can't be a free for all. No other country can say I'm just going to catch anyway because they'd have to come here to catch anyway again to generalise a little and under international law that is our right and responsibility to regulate that so there's every possibility of getting this sustainably right for the future. I think that was just wanting to pull it back a wee bit to some of the things that Callum had talked about are surely things we could replicate if we were out of the EU, the kind of setting quotas and how we manage it. But I suppose what my question is, how do we then negotiate that with other people who have an interest? Bertie was saying that all the fish are going to be in our EEZ roughly. Obviously, we have interests out with that as well, people fishing out with that area. So I'm wondering, where are the real differences about being part of this big family that manages it, or being out there on our own? I think that's a very important point and we're going to develop that a bit under theme 3, so maybe if I could just part of that, I think that's a very important point and we're going to develop that a bit under theme 3. Maybe if I could just part that just slightly at the moment and see if we can come back to the good and the bad as it were of the, sorry, I'll bring you in on that one, Peter. I just wanted to follow up a bit on what Robin Churchill was saying about there was too much of catching ability a few years back and we've now got that into better balance and reduced capacity. Would you like to comment on where the vast bulk of the reduction in capacity took place? Because the feeling is that the vast reduction in capacity took place in Scotland rather than in other EU countries. Is that fair to say that? To be honest, I'm not sure. I've sometimes, since I looked at the figures for reduction in capacity, but one of the problems with capacity is that it's not in any case of reducing the number of vessels. It's a question of the catching power, so sometimes you reduce the number of vessels, but the vessels that remain increase their catching capacity by having bigger engines, bigger nets and so on. The commission does publish figures on this, but whether they're very accurate, I don't know. My focus is where the reduction in catching power took place and the feeling is that it very much took place in the UK fish and the fleet rather than elsewhere. I mean, I don't know if anybody else can comment. I may be bringing Bertie in and then Stuart wants to, I think. Robin, do you want to say anything? Target is very much at Spain and Portugal, but whether it's been very effective in relation to those two countries, I don't know. I haven't seen any recent figures. Sorry, before I do Bertie, can I indicate it and then if I may come to you, can I? It was just to provide a little bit of broader ecological context for this to emphasise that around 100 stocks are fished by UK, including Scottish boats and by other nations, so obviously it's very complex. The other side of the ecological equation, if you like, of a lot of the fish coming here, a lot of the fish that come into the EEZ waters around Scotland, as we heard this morning, such as Mackerel, are spawning in the waters of other EU countries. So that's again just to emphasise that ecosystem approach, not to be just thinking about where the fish are to be caught, but where they spawn, and that's where that cross-border collaboration in whatever structure we have is absolutely key. So global management is important. Sorry, do you want to come back on that, Bertie, maybe on who suffered the pain? I don't know where you're going. Well, I think it was. There was certainly a great deal of sacrifices made here, and Robin's right about the equivalence of boat numbers is sometimes highly misleading. There is, there requires to be some spare capacity. For instance, for the highly migratory species, which there are not many that behave in the way that Callum has just described, a lot of them are much more localised than that.  And you need catching capacity because we have a big quota in normal terms. So therefore, as long as it's profitable, a bit of overcapacity is not necessarily a bad thing, provided the regulatory regime takes charge of it. And here's the vital central point that the fishermen understand that sustainability is in their best interests. And although they could catch more, they do not do so for two reasons. One, so that the market holds up, and two, so that they don't engage in a downwards barrel to hell in a handcart. Stuart, do you want to come in and then maybe we'll move on to the second theme that I'd like to look at? I was just going to make a fairly brief historical point even pre-dates Bertie being at the SFF, but in the early 2000s, when there was a substantial decommissioning of the Scottish fleet, there was a huge amount of ill will created at that time because the EU were simultaneously providing funding to the Spaniards to increase the size of their fleet. And to this very day, even though we've moved to a rather different environment, the influence is the thinking of many of the people involved in the catching sector because the gross and demonstrable inequity of that essentially EU-driven intervention on the one hand quote, killing our fleet and on the other hand building up the Spaniards is still something that you will not escape getting a reference to in many conversations with fishermen in my area of the country. Okay, so I think we maybe leave that one on the note that it hasn't all been perfect under the EU. Peter is going to talk about, I would like to probe a little bit on this policy of how to untangle domestic policy from EU legislation. Yeah, thanks Edward. We all know, we've all discovered that fisheries policy is a very complex area which possibly currently solved in its entirety by the great repeal bell which is about taking all laws from back into our hands in the UK. So I mean my question is will a great repeal bell work for fisheries and aquaculture and do the experts have any particular concerns about a great repeal bell in this region? Who would like to go on that? I mean I quite like to bring in some of the aquaculture interests at some stage I'll sort of give you warning that I'd like to just push on that. Maybe I'll start with Bertie again on that, just say. That's a more than relevant question. If the great repeal bell, the whole of the CFP is embraced in UK law, then it frankly won't work because relative stability and the grand disadvantage will be perpetuated. We've already discussed this with the relevant people in the UK government and there are some I'm delighted to say a term as a risen which is inoperabilities. If you just did that then it would be inoperable for a number of reasons. There is much that can be embraced. We've gone through the common fisheries policy with a pen and lined out the bits that are inoperable. Much of it is operable or some of it is operable providing you take those big bits out but there may need to be some new legislation for day one of Brexit but we would see that as doable, we hope. Scott, having given you warning, obviously you're a very important and your industry is an important part of fish production for Scotland and the UK. Perhaps you'd like to say something about what your views on that are. Specifically with the great repeal bell, our concern would be regulatory equivalents. That would be important to us, our major competitor being Norway who are in the EA and they have regulatory equivalents with the EU and we expect something similar once the great repeal bell is enacted and I know that the cabinet secretary here has expressed similar sentiments and we don't really have any issue with that. We live within environmental regulation we have now occasionally we may think it may be over precautionary, I'm sure Callum would have an alternative opinion to that but nevertheless it is world class standards that we are all seeking and I think that's what we've established so we don't see any dividend coming from repealing regulation we just don't envisage that at all on the basis that a lot of operators in Scotland also operate in Norway presumably the standards would be fairly interchangeable is that a fair assumption? Interchangeable is maybe not the right word we operate to a good practice as 540 compliance points within it which really is the framework of how we operate and how we farm although there's a different interpretation in Norway and the way environmental regulation is enacted in Norway is somewhat different to how it is here so there are some parts of that model we would quite like but the overall framework is set by the EU and we both operate within that framework so there are some differences equally some of the differences arise in a kind of geography the coastline of Norway is considerably different to the coastline of Scotland sorry just is it easier or less regulations in no way to Scotland or are they the same? that's maybe too simplistic in some instances it could be regarded as more favourable with regard to incentivising different behaviours I would say and that's something that we're in continuous conversation with Marine Scotland about John, you want to come in and steer it? What exactly do you mean by regulatory equivalence cos that's not a term I'm afraid I'm very familiar with well basically the regulatory framework we currently enjoy is really comes from its origins in the European Union and the regulation that's SEPA basically deploy in Scotland is based upon the environmental standards that are established in the European Union and we have what we call EQSE Environmental Quality Standards which are invoked here to ensure that there's protection for the local environment and also the wide national environment and we obviously have to abide by them and we respect that and we're relatively comfortable with that just now but the usage of that changes significantly once the great repeal bill comes in Canem did you want to come in and then I'd like to bring Stuart in again I would focus on any particular sorry legislative solution the important thing is that in line with both the Scottish Government and UK Government ambitions to be world leaders and in line with the global management we were talking about we'd like to see legislation strengthened and even going beyond and I've touched on some of the things we wouldn't want to see lost that are the best of the CFP but there's also very good global standards in terms of world summit and sustainable development the United Nations Conventional Law the Sea, Auspar, the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission all these global drivers have to be taken into account and the other key legal protections that are important are those that are delivered by directives such as the main strategy framework directive within which sustainable fisheries management would contribute the birds and habitats directive world leading protection for important rain areas for species and habitats so it's absolutely key whatever the constitutional legal outcome is that all these protections are strengthened and improved in order to meet ambitions of all four nations Stuart, do you want to come in and us to just a couple of things fairly briefly on salmon farming I think just environmentally given that Norway has very little tidal rise and fall the environmental opportunity for the tide to disperse waste material from farming is much less in Norway than in Scotland I make no comment about that apart from saying therefore clearly you need a different regulatory regime that has a physical difference in the locations just to choose but one example of the differences so I don't think the same regulatory regime would work in the two juris sections but let me just move on to the real reason I put my finger up which was looking at domestic policy following great reform I think we mustn't overlook the fact that we've also got to address the issue of domestic practice but what I'm definitely concerned about is the way in which we have to run enforcement will be different we might need another fishery protection vessel because I think our enforcement response I don't know the answer to that I just say in the debate we've got to address that issue because it's not just about changing the lots about changing what we do as well and our two fishery protection vessels are spread pretty thin and if we've got more vessels out there of our vessels out there we're going to have a different enforcement regime we need to address no answers only a question and maybe the technology that's coming on the stream will make that easier but Arresty, you wanted to come in I'm here today representing Creel and Dive fishing operations around the coastline of Scotland and on the west coast in particular where many of the rural communities rely on their catches to provide the rural communities with benefits that flow through the community our biggest concern is not really Europe because we have exclusive access out to six miles and most of our membership works within that six mile area the biggest darkness on our doorstep at the current time is the salmon farming industry which are using copious amounts of chemical pollutants to treat sea lice and those chemicals are responsible for reducing crustacea to form shell we have to seek guarantees from the Scottish Salmon producers organisation that they clean up their act I'm going to try and diffuse this slightly and just say that I understand your concerns and I understand that there will be concerns on both sides and maybe this is something that we can look at Brexit and the European Union and it's something that Scotland needs to look at Mike, can I bring you in? I'll take your point there I'd like to particularly ask Scott this about regulatory regimes when we come out of the European Union and contrary to the view just expressed by Stuart I would imagine correct me if I'm wrong imagine for your exports to the European Union you would need to have the same regulatory standards that the rest of the European Union operate within in other words to keep market share and perhaps increase market share I think that that was the point that I was trying to make earlier on is that the overall environmental regulatory framework we operate under similar regimes that the interpretation is different SEPA interprets it in a different way to the way the authorities in Norway do and Stuart was right that obviously they have less tidal exchange and they're much deeper coastline than we have so that's to their advantage with regard to sedimentary control so we're not comparing apples with apples as it wears with oranges with regard to the different environment we operate in having said that the overall or overarching environmental regulatory framework comes from the European Union Is that a similar standard? Yeah Callum mentions world class standards to be world class We export 65 countries around the world we can't do that if we're not world class standards in our production Michael, I'm wondering if you want to come in at all on keeping the standards the same as Europe and that I can bring Peter in first sorry, I'm rather bouncing you for an answer Peter come in first and I can maybe come back to you I've got a specific question convener it's in this theme and one of the themes that we're struggling with at the moment is the landing obligation issue and that falls in here as well and we know that there are issues nobody wants to see good fish go over the side but there are issues with tidal and with quota and choke species and all that stuff and I'm wondering if we're designing a new regime post Brexit how that particular issue could be framed in a more suitable manner for the fishing community to live with Peter you're not going to enjoy me for this I'm going to hold that over to theme 5 which I think is what elements of EU policy would you like to go because I think that the very issue of throwing dead fish over the side has been a very difficult thing and I'd like to develop that under theme 5 and I'll certainly bring you in with the same question Michael did you have a comment you wanted to make about trying to keep the integration with Europe and the produce going to Europe? Yes, thank you Edward we are very similarly minded to the salmon industry that the standards that we have are needed to be maintained because of our successful export industry as well we have many standards within the country here we have Salsa BRC and those standards are recognised throughout Europe and a lot of people in Europe are asking for suppliers to have those standards in place so we would again continue with those standards and if possible welcome any changes to it but we are meeting a lot of what is going in place already and we don't have any issues with the compliance of it our issue would be that again interpretation of the standards is different in Europe than it is here but we interpret it the way that our country wants it to be interpreted and meets the standards required abroad so again we are successful in exporting our fish because of the way that we handle it and look after it John Newan just came in I was to pick up a point that Mr Sinclair said that I know you wish to move on from we are talking about the great repeal bill but of course there is the potential there for replacement and I wonder if Mr Sinclair saw an opportunity with the great repeal bill in place because a lot of people share the concerns that you articulated there because we are at the stage now where there are things appearing in the press that are really questionable as to the behaviour of SIPA and others and the communities from where our fishermen operate are seeing for example fish farm applications to be placed within marine protected areas well that makes a nonsense marine protected areas and they do not want to see marine protected areas spoiled in such a manner because we have anecdotal and there is other genuine proof that some of the chemicals that these guys have been using in the past are detrimental to the sea floor and anything that is on the sea floor is going to be affected by chemical and that in turn will affect the guys that are out there fishing for Crestracia etc and we have enough problems with micro beads etc etc without getting into the problems that the salmon farming industry might place upon us Just before I bring you in can I ask Canham to come in then I'll give you a chance to come back and maybe then we can move on to the next subject Canham's right small point in response to John taking the point that fisheries and MPA compliance might come under a future theme but relevant to this theme it was to emphasise that there is a commitment in the programme of government to insure fisheries bill and the insure is still to be defined whether that is 6 or 12 or have you so there may be overlap with CFP or CFP2 or what have you but it's just to take the opportunity to emphasise that regardless of how we in Scotland across the UK choose to manage fishing particularly in those offshore waters that we can't let that opportunity to improve the insure management through the insure fishing bill be lost because insure fishing has been a bit of a Cinderella it seems to me in terms of sustainability and an overlooked area so we welcome that bill coming forward I'm going to let Scott say a final comment before we move perhaps on to the next Thank you Edward I take your point John Finnie that we're here to talk about the great repeal bill at this point and then other aspects of Brexit I didn't expect the salmon farming industry to be attacked when I got here this morning and I think some of the references to recent media comments are potentially inflammatory because some of that really I feel has been written in a manner as if we're hiding something all of the data that's come out in the media recently is published it's actually in the public domain and we're complying with SEPA regulation now if people want that changed fair enough let's go through a proper lobbying process and discussion about that but let's not just hang salmon farming in the court of public opinion which is primarily being hijacked by campaigners Scott I don't think salmon farming is being attacked I think what's interesting between this session is we're talking or this particular theme is that we're talking on whether it's possible to entangle legislation and what I think the committee is hearing is that first of all there should be no raining back on the standards that are being set by Europe if we're still to be able to maintain within Europe and there is a real opportunity to move the standards forward that is my understanding of what's been said and certainly what we've heard from the Scottish Fishmen's Federation is that it's not beyond the man with negotiation to make this work and I think that's where I'd like to leave this and I would urge people that actually what we are trying to do is see a way forward and improving everything that we can and I think that's important so what I we said when in fact I stopped Roder I think we were talking about access to UK waters and quotas and Roder would you like just to rephrase your question to bring it in now about what will happen is it going to be a free for all? I guess my question was slightly going on the first theme and on that theme in that what is in the common fisheries policy that we would want to retain and what by coming out of it where are the freedoms in that and then leading on from that how do we police that because how much of it isn't impacted by the common fisheries policy and how much not? Does Bertie want to come in and I'd ask perhaps if we can think about this whole thing of access to the waters not only the 0 to 12 miles but the 12 miles to 200 miles because I think that's important but certainly everyone come in if I can get you all in Bertie you want to start I'll keep my eyes on it might want to come in as well but I'll just put a finger on the centre of the whole thing the thing that's changed that will change on Brexit is governance of the exclusive economic zone radically and wildly into the model already adopted around the world for coastal states capital letters with a specific meaning that you have the rights and responsibilities from our present shared access common grazing we've been dismissing it as a completely relevant question about what about access well the answer to that is access to those waters is in the gift of the coastal state much as Norway Iceland ferros do that so it would be up to the coastal state to decide who came in the setting of opportunity is absolutely central to this because how much fish can be caught where and by whom is the centre of sustainability there already is and I'm delighted to say and it didn't quite come out in the seminar for those who attended it this morning there already is a template for that known as coastal states capital letters where the relevant coastal states with fish in their EEZs get together and thrash out how much of what can be caught where it's a well trodden path it is much less politicised than the common fisheries policy because there's a cage in the common fisheries policy with all the EU fishing nations in it and they try and influence what the individual negotiator will then do in coastal states it's much more direct taking Norway as an example where they negotiate simply on their own behalf they have to use a phrase that you've heard before have a seat at the top table and that would be us and who was in that seat would depend very much on what species it would be a different set of people between marine Scotland officials if you were talking about herring the grand migratory species if you want to talk about Channel Cod there is no coastal state arrangement for that but there'd have to be and I would imagine it would be different officials and we wouldn't care as long as no Scottish fish was swapped for Channel Cod but that's another story so there is a process out there where the principle of guarantee rights and responsibilities for the coastal state undertaken by us and for us to then at last be able to negotiate for advantage of the coastal state the same way as everybody else does Mike, you wanted to make a comment on this very issue common fisheries policy and international law at the seminar this morning came as a surprise to me having looked at this for years at the seminar this morning that we were told one quarter are within the Scottish exclusive economic zone of the UK's zone one quarter of the fish in both quantity and value are fished by the EU states other than the UK and one quarter are fished by non-EU states so when I was under the impression that if we came out of the European Union and we were in charge of our own affairs at the seminar this morning it came to me if I'm interpreted correctly this is why I'm asking the question that actually there are other obligations and international law that we have to adhere to so is it what my question's frame basically is is it a fallacy that when we come out of the European Union all this EU fishing capacity will be freed up for British vessels that's the key issue as far as I can see let Bertie come in briefly if I may because I'd like to bring Robin in Robin will without a shadow explain this lucidly the answer to that is yes the non-EU fishing that happens an amount of fish is given to let's use Norway as an example an amount of fish is given to Norway at the end of the EU agreements in exchange for other fish our problem in Scotland is that we are a big net contributor to the tune of 110,000 tonnes of blue-whiting into this swap which Norway receives gratefully and catches and then you get a load of stuff back which goes not none of it to Scotland most of it elsewhere so that inequity and disadvantage would be fixed at a stroke there may well be still 100% of the fish taken from European from our waters fished in non-EU hands but we'd get a much better deal than we presently get the essential point is that sovereignty and control would fall to the coastal state you could make arrangements on that basis and so this very short answer is yes a short answer Bertie and sorry Robin if I could bring you in and then if I could bring in Stuart thank you if I might just add one or two little amplifications and qualifications on what Bertie has said the basic starting position in international law is that a coastal state has sovereign rights over the living resources of its EEZ the coastal state is not obliged to admit any other state to fish for those resources unless there is a surplus in other words if the allowable catch is greater than the fish catching capacity of the coastal state then the law of the sea convention says that other states must be given access to the surplus but even after that the coastal state has a complete discretion as to which states are given access with the exception of landlocked and geographically disadvantaged states that's not relevant in the UK context however there are two or three things which I think that that strict principle won't necessarily apply the first is that most of the stocks in the North Sea are shared stocks that is to say that at the moment they are shared between the EU and Norway post Brexit we would then need some trilateral arrangement EU, UK and Norway and then a lot depends on negotiation about allocation and swaps and so on that Bertie has mentioned I would say just one thing about allocation and that is that the Guardian a few weeks ago published what was described as a leaked paper from the European Parliament where the European Parliament was saying that the principle of relative stability which is what applies is the allocation key at the moment should continue post Brexit and that seems to me to be unacceptable the EU has said very strongly in recent weeks that the UK if it comes out of the EU cannot enjoy the benefits of membership and it seems to me that principle cuts both ways so that EU states and fishing states cannot enjoy the benefits that they have at the moment under the EU and the basic principle of allocation between Norway and the UK is a principle known as zonal attachment which is that it's the proportion of the catch the proportion of mature fish in each party's zone which determines broadly speaking the division of the quota so I think we should strongly hold out for that principle and resist any attempt to continue relative stability just what sorry I've gone on rather at length but just one other brief point to bear in mind and that is that the EU in the past has when negotiating trade arrangements had a trade off between greater access to the EU market and greater access for EU vessels to fishing grounds this happened with Norway where there is no free trading fish in principle under the European economic area but Norway was given greater access to the EU market but in return Norway had to give the EU greater access for EU vessels to its waters so I think we need to be aware in the negotiations that will be taking place that the EU may try to play this card of course and I think the point was made at the briefing this morning that giving access doesn't mean you're necessarily going to catch more fish it's giving access to the areas that you want to come in Thank you very much Robin has rather helpfully answered many of the questions that I was going to ask but I have one residual little question and that simply is whether it and I'm not sure it's covered by any other heading in our proposed scheme of discussion just whether it would be perfectly legal for us to abolish the existing quotas and replace them I'm not proposing this I guess into that dispute on my head but whether it would be perfectly legal for us to do that and replace it with a different way of controlling, managing and allocating access and I think I'm probably directing that just back to Robin Robin, if you want to put your head in the firing line on quotas well yes very briefly the UK will be responsible for management of the 200m zone if it wants to operate with total allowable catches and quotas but if it wanted to replace it with a form of effort limitation so many vessels can fish in these areas at such times that's also a possibility so we would have a free choice in other words as to the type of management mentioned we adopted I've logged in but I want to try and work round the table do you want to come in on that to respond to the question that the ruler put about what to retain and what the freedoms to consolidate what we were saying earlier we would like to retain commitment to the ecosystem based approach to management including appropriate measures to address discards there needs to be a precautionary approach hardwired in there I would lead to retain deep sea regulations the principles enshrined by article 17 in terms of and this relates to the point about effective monitoring and management and so on transparent objectives for environment, social and economic criteria with integration with these overarching frameworks, many strategy framework directives, habitat spurts directives and retain a regionalised eco-region approach to management as I mentioned lots of struggling stocks straddling stocks and collaborations necessary we have the freedom to improve so there's a in the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission the Nations Convention on the Sea the UN Fish Stock Agreement it's the EU that's party to those so in the absence of the CFP it's not a free for all so there needs to be a sensible for nation approach to negotiating with all those international frameworks to get sustainable ecosystem based outcomes a big part of the improvement that's needed is effective spatial measures not just in relation to NPAs and SACs but in terms of protecting important critical fish habitat for spawning grounds for example and breeding grounds and the in terms of that wider context the marine atlas does highlight the concerns about wider ecosystem health so we shouldn't just focus on stocks so there's a lot of concerns about wider sea bed ecosystem health that the improvement to spatial management of fishing could also help to address in addition to improve stock management and these other measures and improve management can come about through full documentation which is maybe something we can get on to later I'm filling your shopping basket of things that you're asking for maybe overflow maybe I could go to Bertie and just ask him to make comment on that and then I'd like to just come back to creeling what I'd like to just to prompt you on Alistair is if you see any threats from other boats from other countries to creeling in Scottish waters but maybe you can answer that very quickly Bertie with regard to Cullum's shopping list and Robin's small diversion into potential management measures there's no reason in God's earth why all of this can't be embraced with alacrity and the limits of the CFP focus on sustainability and the freedom to use any method I'll have to say an effort management only one is something of an on tried system we're unlikely to go straight to that but all this is entirely possible because once we're out of the cage of the CFP we can do all of this and better and we start from a good position because we're entirely compliant right now with everything Alistair, do you see any threats to creelers from coming away from your I really don't think so it would be too far to travel to make it viable so it's from your industry's point of view I don't think we have any great concerns there we have vessels that come from Guernsey supercrabbers etc that come and take lobster and brown crab from stock and they don't have any real impact on local fisheries they might have in discrete areas but the discrete areas where these vessels fish are generally areas where the smaller boat can't fish you know further out to see okay well if everyone's happy with that I may move on to the next theme which is access to funding expertise, labour and resources and I think John was going to Philly was going to lead us off with a question on that indeed thank you convener and it was with reference to the European maritime fisheries fund that the sum of money that comes to Scotland to support sustainable fishing and help coastal communities and that's 44 per cent of the UK fund and this may be particularly important for the fish processing sector so the question is will the UK and Scotland lose access to funding, expertise and resources that are particularly important for fisheries and aquaculture and it's scientific expertise I understand it's a very good question can I just say that I would like to hear from Michael and Scott on that because I think it will affect your industry as well but we start with Bertie and work that way and then I'll work up this way for the catching sector it's quite simple the amount of funding we receive from the EMFF is approximately Ian will put me right and shout if this is wrong it's about 1 per cent of 1st sail and landing we are not an industry that depends on subsidies at all in fact it would be a distortion if we were when there's a fund available you grab it and we do with some enthusiasm if it's not there it's not going to kill us and we do not wish to develop into an industry that depends on funding so the last point very short point to make is that is the UK as a net funder all things being equal now no life is more complicated than this if we give in more than we get then surely it is not beyond the witty of man to support everything that is supported by funds if those arguments stand up by themselves I think Bertie part of John's question was all said to do with Labour was that right? Of course an important element of the present situation is the free movement of Labour is something that's very important to people and the implications of any alteration to that situation we'd like to hear Without a doubt Michael of course will speak for the processing industry there is some EU Labour in the catching sector not a lot to be honest I'm seized with this thought what country would not supply itself with Labour that it requires there's a difference between free movement of all Europeans under one of the four freedoms in the single market and a country like the UK allowing people in to do jobs that it wants people to do I can't see that this is an unjumpable hurdle Mari, before we move on you want to add something to this question? That was actually going to be my specific question was related to the free movement of Labour and exactly how important that is because I take your point and see it's not a hurdle but I think we've talked about that in some other areas and some other debates fair enough we have a Labour force here in a section of that that could be working but obviously it depends where you are in the country it's not all concentrated in one place and it is just really the impact of the free movement of people and I imagine that will be from the process inside that will have a big impact Michael would you like to talk on that? Thank you Edward certainly our sector relies heavily on nationals from other and there's no question that we couldn't survive without them our own workforce no longer sees the fish processing sector as a viable lucrative area to work in since basically since oil came on board and started pushing up wages and pinching workers and that became a more attractive industry to go to so we would certainly like all foreign workers for want of a better description that are currently working in the country to be allowed to stay here and we rely on that quite heavily because I can't see how we are going to be able to change the perception of youngsters or industry as a career industry and is worth coming into without being able to offer huge wages to compete with other industry so we really need these people to stay here and to be able to come here and add to it as our sector will grow there's a lot of businesses keen to expand just now but the uncertainty of Brexit is holding back investment and once the uncertainty becomes clearer and everybody knows what we're faced with and how we're going to progress there'll be a lot of companies ready to invest in the future but they'll need staff I think that Mary wants to come back and ask a wee bit that'll be quick the workforce across processing comes from how many EU migrants you have in the industry as a whole difficult to give you a figure but if I take the companies I know of in the north east which are obviously predominantly Aberdeen and Peterhead your finding in most companies is little as 20 per cent of their home staff at local people there's a huge majority of EU nationals working in our industry certainly over 60 per cent well over before we move on to Scott I think Stuart had a question just on that just a wee financial one for the processing industry with the current limit support over I think three years essentially the processing industry is not a big recipient either as the catching industry of European funds the European maritime and fisheries fund is essentially an infrastructure fund that supports communities and is usefully I would suggest supporting harbours in their wider exploitation of opportunities not just in fishing so perhaps I'm correct I hope in saying that the processing industry is similarly pretty detached from EU financial support yes unfortunately you're correct we are very detached from it Scott do you want to come in and tell us a little about your industry I think just to reiterate what Stuart said agriculture similar to Bertie said and Michael we don't enjoy a lot of EMFF support and we do apply for match funding for one or two things from time to time but it doesn't run to tens of millions that runs to maybe one or two per annum which is good it's not to be sniffed at but it's not significant and it's not crucial to our future wellbeing as an industry so it's something that I wouldn't put up as a red line issue if you like for us in the future nevertheless it's always helpful we do have a lot of money going into from the higher education funding into innovation centres which the Scottish Government established a few years ago and we are looking forward to some dividend from that in the near future and I think we'll see some significant change in our management of the welfare of our fishing through that and that's really the main purpose for it being established so it'll take time but we're definitely making progress in that score so I think that maybe will help one or two frustrations if you like that we've heard today with regard to salmon farming just on the point of EU migrant labour we estimate that in our primary and secondary production for salmon and as you can imagine farmed salmon is the one guaranteed fish processing plants every day and that was a point made at an SMP conference a couple of years ago by a delegate that's the fish that does happen to arrive every day in a processing plant and we reckon it's about 8,000 people from the EU involved in processing portion of your overall well I mean I can't speak for the processing centre but as far as farming is concerned we're not a labour intensive industry we employ about 2,500 people sorry just to develop that we have a percentage of those 2,500 people very small about 10% sorry John it's just one point and maybe the contributors are going to come to it but I also asked about the potential loss of scientific expertise a lot of academia shares experience I mean it's the same water what we've heard in the forest industry about shared expertise is there any concerns that the panel have about loss of scientific expertise Nick I'm coming on that and I don't know do you have a view that Callum maybe you could just come on scientific experience do you think that's going to be a loss I'm not closest enough to the funding structures but obviously I can speak to the principle that needs to be adequate resources to support sound science because all this ecosystem based management of fisheries thoughts management decisions including on aquaculture needs to be based on good science but also the precautionary principle applies when data is lacking I mean I would like to say something about the incentives as well in relation to the actual fleet very quickly and it's important whatever the sort of EMF equivalence is it's allocated according to need and that that these incentives encourage sustainable practice so we get a race to the top so that we're encouraging improved gear improved gear selectivity again things I'm sure everybody around the room can agree with and that can encouraged improved spatial management as well in terms of temporal and other spatial areas so we need to have financial incentives for the industry to encourage the sustainable practice we want to see which is good business sense as well because you then have a more sustainable product which is higher value conceivably lower environmental impact ideally lower environmental impact and that is the sort of market the sort of vision Scotland would want to project to the market domestically and globally I'm sure and resources are also important for monitoring and compliance of course I'm assuming if any of the panel members aren't looking at me they definitely don't want to come in and I will have to force them to come in I think, Scott, you want to come back and I would like to ask Alistair just a wee bit about resources and labour as far as EU and acrylic fishermen are concerned sorry, Scott I don't have the figures but it's a good question from John and I think we need to be aware that there's a lot of higher education support coming from EMFF in particular with regard to our industry the Institute of Agriculture the University of Stirling which is regarded as a world-class educational research establishment in the world of agriculture and I'm aware that they have some serious concerns regarding reduced funding Alistair, do you want as far as acrylic fishermen concerned grants from the EU is there a contribution or is there there's no great appetite from within the creel industry to actually go out and seek funding from the EMFF because the creel industry like the mobile industry is a here and now business the boats can be repaired and sorted in a couple of days and bang, they're off to sea again and form filling is a very difficult thing to get the creel fishermen to do it's hard enough to get them to fill in their landing sheets on a weekly basis and find a long convoluted form for EMF funding Bertie, do you want to come back in on any of those? The scientific support is exceedingly important from the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas the recognised international body a lot of data leaves us and there's great assistance from the EU for that data to be provided that needs to be replaced along the same lines there's money there but that needs to be thought of we cannot possibly have a degradation of stock assessments as a result of of anything we do John, do you want to follow any of if anyone is happy we may move on to that theme and the next one is on what elements of the EU policy members of the panel are keen to see go I think Jamie's got a specific question and Callum was very adept at filling up a shopping basket it helps a committee if you can focus on a couple of issues if that's what Jamie's going to ask you but Jamie perhaps you could lead on Thank you, I think you've just asked the question for me Sorry That's me putting my place and you'll never get another question But if I may, just for the benefit of being on the camera I'll say a few words I think it's fascinating that this conversation I've been quietly listening in the corner here but I think there generally seems to be a consensus that there are elements of CFP that have been positive and beneficial it's not all doom and gloom I appreciate there are and have been many complexities and problems with it but it's nice to hear that there are there is consensus among the general objectives around sustainability and ensuring that we have strong industries that take into account the needs of the coastal communities that participate in these industries On the other side of that however, I wonder if there is any consensus around elements of the CFP that we would be happy to see the back of Now, Robin mentioned relative stability We've briefly touched on landing obligations quotas, technical regulations and so on I would generally like to hear if anyone has any views on things that this does present any opportunities at all in a post CFP EU era Thank you, Jamie, for making the question your own. Robin Well, I think a lot of things will go simply through the UK leaving Brexit, sorry, leaving the EU and therefore leaving the common fisheries policy and relative stability will be one of them historic access rights which I don't think we mentioned really before to the 12 miles zone, that will go I'm sure otherwise you caught me rather on the hop on this, so I'll leave others who've got stronger views. If we work back the way, maybe Scott if you've got anything or do you want to go and Michael is looking the other way so it's definitely Bertie Thank you very much you may have heard the phrase sea of opportunity where we have been defining the opportunities that come from this and Robin put his finger on it it's the remove away from relative stability and the gaining of sovereignty and governance and ours will produce a gigantic game changing opportunity for the seafood industry of Scotland where we can behave on the world stage in the same sort of way that for example Norway does so there are a number of opportunities and that increased economic volume all other things flow from that if you've got an increased activity then the jobs can be made more attractive you would hope and our reputation would grow so there's a stream of opportunity from additional economic activity which will fall our way unless it's deliberately traded away or this is handled badly Mary did you have a full up to that I did, well it was just about quota hopping and on the back of some of the questions that we had in the briefing this morning about quotas and I thought that that was developing into quite an interesting topic it was just to hear a bit more from Bertie in particular about quota hopping since she responded to that this morning and how much is that much of an issue in Scotland, is that something that's prevalent here? It certainly exists and as Wendy said this morning it's not actually to do with fishing management it's to do with the right of establishment of a brass plate and the purchasing of companies land rover is beneficially owned elsewhere for instance so you can do that there would be an opportunity should the governments of the land decide to change that if you wish Norway do it differently as I mentioned this morning from us but it's not the central question we're not having our industries bought over in Scotland to any great extent but it's something that we could guard against recognising the underlying principle that everyone seems to support here and most other countries support is that your national resource of fish is indeed a national resource and something that you do not completely privatise it's not like buying steel for car making it's different because it's a national resource and we can strengthen that or loosen it as desired post Brexit the unique opportunity exists to do that in whatever way the government decides Stuart wants to come in we're getting a cure of people now Stuart it's a relatively small point it's back to the point I raised earlier about decision making and policy making that I understand when the Norwegians are sitting down to negotiate with the EU the fishermen are there as part of the delegation in the EU not the fishermen and I wonder whether there is not an opportunity to have the people A who are affected by the decisions directly as part of the negotiating team but B who also can inform officials and in particular politicians who are rarely experts in anything even if we come to Parliament as an expert our expertise atrophies and disappears and I just wonder in looking at EU policy that that's a key area where we can draw more people with relevant knowledge and experience to the table and get better outcomes I'm just going to bring John in because I think there's a two fold question here and then just because the way is starting to stack up a wee bit it's based on what Bertie Armstrong just said he paints the picture of we could just take all the powers back on board I think the assumption is that the UK government is going to say well we want to get a special deal for the financial sector in London so we'll give away part of the fishing because that doesn't really matter to the UK so I mean within the EU policy are there bits that you would want to keep and bits that you'd be more happy you know that you just accept that the UK will trade them away there's two separate questions there I wonder the potential for the UK to trade it away we will react as savagely as we can manage to anybody any government of any colour trading away what we regard as literally once in a generation opportunity to take charge of our own national resource so that's really the central point of that I'm hoping nobody's going to sell us anywhere I think we've got to be careful about talking about things that are being suggested that aren't actually fact and I think that what we've got to be careful of is to take cognisance of the fact that there is a I think once in a generation was your expression although I'm sure I've heard that before about getting an opportunity of making a change and you're not going to sacrifice that for anyone so maybe we could leave that one there the second part of the Stuart your question was on the people at the table we've just been to Norway in fact I think that DEFRA and Marine Scotland are as we speak with the officials in Norway Stuart exactly describes the situation it's not the lunatics in charge of the asylum it is the relevant subject matter experts are talking to the right decision makers and Norway warned us that there's rough and tumble in the room when this goes on but it's if you like our rough and tumble you're not one of eight to influence your politician who then tries to influence a negotiator who decides what he's going to do in the first place so it's much closer the relevant expertise is much closer to the decision making and we would be pushing as hard as we can to be the relevant experts are part of the including scientists are part of the the decision making process Caleb I'm happy to let you in with a small shopping basket I was going to say I don't have a reverse shopping basket of things to remove at the minute but if I could just comment from the CFP comment on some of the points Bertie made not to disagree with them but just to elaborate very quickly just absolutely support this idea that stocks are a national resource can't privatise and the example we heard this morning exemplifies that where they spawn off Ireland and are fished off Scotland we heard about Norway I'd also like to look at draw the committee's attention to New Zealand and British Columbia and Canada where they're very successfully using remote electronic monitoring so that helps to improve fisheries management and that could help in an area where there might be some grumbling around the CFP in terms of the discards ban so there's a good report by WWF I could draw the committee's attention to look at improvements that could be made in monitoring activity at sea and catch in a socially just way you'll bring more rather than take it away so I think I'm going to move on and ask Peter to hear the point you'd like to make just to get back to the landing obligation I wonder if there's a better way we could manage that post Brexit we all want to see this work but it has to be sensible and work within as it is just now the quota system and the worry of choke species so I'll just throw that out and see whether there's a better way we can do that Can I do it very briefly because we're going to come on to catching and processing Absolutely Brevity The problem with the CFP landing obligation is that it was politically driven without proper regard for the practical application It's a bit like banning road accidents and sitting back dusting your hands and saying it's all done How would you do that? The Norwegians operate a discard ban which is less worse than the UK one and we might take that as a model but we must be done we must stop this or we must reduce this as far as physically possible but the EU model right now is preposterously unworkable Alasdair, do you want to come in? If there's anything that we can retain from the CFP we would like to see probably Marine Scotland that would be in charge of all this but we would like to see them look at article 17 which clearly states that member states shall endeavour to provide incentives to fishing vessels deploying selective fishing gear or using fishing techniques with reduced environmental impact such as reduced energy consumption or habitat damage We have to have that in whatever we create I think that Callum would support you on that and I think that fishermen would from what I've been hearing as well so I think that's interesting The next theme is to do with co-ordination I'm going to say no more Steel Richard's Thunder Richard Most of what I was going to ask already has been answered or suggested but I'm old enough to remember the Cod Wars I'm old enough to remember the British Navy out in facing other countries so and with the great respect some of us feel that the Scottish fishing industry has had a bad deal for years and we'll still get a bad deal whatever Brexit comes out with so I was interested in a comment that Professor Robin Churchill said that as a coastal state we just retain all fishing areas for ourselves should we or do we have to or do we want to coordinate or do we want to take it back to our own within our own sorry I couldn't make this morning's meeting but I know from previous meetings I've been on this committee in the last session that Scottish quotas have been brought up by foreign boats and basically that would be done away with once we get into Brexit so do we want to coordinate with our neighbours or do we want to keep all our fish whatever wherever it was spawned do we want to keep all our fish for the Scottish fishing industry and for Scottish fishermen Robin do you want to come I think the short answer to that is if we do not coordinate with the EU in Norway there's a real risk that it'll be every state for itself and the fish will be overfished each state will just take it what it regards as its legitimate share which probably will be larger when you add the three together will be more than 100% of what scientists are recommending as the total catch Anyone else want Bertie? That's absolutely correct but in the briefest of statements that will not be possible for all stocks it will simply not be possible to take the volume of stocks other countries take the volume of stocks that they have under relative stability but a real and present danger and of course we want to co-ordinate I mean sorry John and that Richard The other commentator I'd like to pick up on the point that Alasdair made about the sustainable issues and the retention of that particular section Okay Did you build that into your answers Richard? I would really like to ask Mr Lamstrong How strong does he feel or how much of inclusiveness has the UK Government including your association or fishermen in general wherever they are in the UK in regards to what will happen after Brexit Okay, yes I understand we will all have to negotiate we can't go back to the cod wars we can't go back to you know the the Navy has to get the ships now to get them down the channel or the North Sea or whatever but how much inclusiveness is the UK Government asking the Scottish Fishermen's Federation or the the English Fishermen's Federation to be included in these negotiations It looks like this is a story We have had meetings with David Jones' department with Andrea Lettsom twice and we are meeting her again next week with officials in Defra, Seith, Adnausium with officials north and with those MSPs who bother themselves most especially the Cabinet Secretary so we are talking to everyone we are not getting hard assurances from everybody that your outcome will be as follows we will be ignored and as I said earlier we will react as savagely as we possibly can to this opportunity not being taken the figures are really stark there is a zonal attachment our paper what fish live here and what proportion of them live here and what proportion do you catch I pick out one example 88% of the herring basically live in our waters in the northern continental shelf we get 15% of the TAC so we would like that to change there is a list of 17 in this study taken from the official figures where a grand long period of disadvantage needs to be settled of course in coordination but there must be a robust approach to this you don't leave the golf club and continue to pay the fees the point that Robin really made very well it cuts both ways if we've left the control of the EU we want some of this back Callum did you want and maybe answer John's question on conservation did you want to say something there or not I'd have to be reminded of that John you it's the issue that Alistair raised when I asked about what would be worthy of retention and it was about using sustainable methods and the low carbon impact that they would have I'd hoped to hear from Mr Armstrong on that perfect but if you'd like to answer and maybe Callum will get a chance to gather your thoughts to come in with a short answer give development to use less fuel to have less impact and to catch less of that which you don't want to catch is a moving picture we apply a lot of time, effort and money to it and I would see a redoubling under our own management rather than a cessation of it Do you want to come in briefly because I'd like to move on to the next theme if I may I answered earlier a lot of the things worth retaining and definitely the approach articles 4 and 17 provide for ecosystem-based management and transparent objectives the deep sea ecosystem regime as well and just briefly to answer Richard you also said earlier we would support a regionalised ecoregion management approach we need to collaborate and whilst not perfect the advisory councils for the North Sea and North West waters are a good start so we need to collaborate and for the reasons Robin said to preserve straddling stocks Maybe we can move on to the next theme if we may and it's to do with what I'd ask Rowder to lead on that one Yes, it's kind of coming away from the common fisheries policy by going into trade a lot of our fish caught is sold to the EU as well as a lot of our processed fish going to the EU what impact is that going to have on as what outcome would people want to make sure that it's fine having all the opportunity to fish but if you don't have somewhere to sell it then that becomes a huge difficulty for the industry so how do we overcome that and how do we negotiate So maybe we could bring Michael in to start on that one please Well to answer Rowder's question where else can the EU get the fish from we are currently exporting quite a lot of our product to the EU because they need it if we have a greater share of the raw material that means there's a lesser share for the EU vessels to have which would increase the demand for our product because they're catching less but they're still consuming those same levels so they will get the product so we feel that you know export sales and even domestic sales will continue and if anything will increase we are not afraid of any changes to tariffs because again we feel that those will be minimised because of the demand for our product from the EU but anywhere else you know where can they get fish from if not from our waters and from our processors if their access is reduced I'm not saying that their access will stop but it will certainly reduce and they require that product so we're quite confident that this is a good opportunity for the processing sector I can't read it if you'd like to come back on that I just want to come back on that because obviously if there are tariffs in place that increases the cost I mean how elastic is that going into basic supply and demand economics there must be a point where tariffs would actually affect people's buying power so there must be is there a concern or are you quite confident that no matter what they do within reason and that one imagines it would all be within reason won't impact on sales again Rhoda you're quite correct there would be a limit of course to that but our feeling is because of the the demand for the product that any increase in tariff would be as little as possible to avoid making the price of that raw material too high for them just because we have the product doesn't mean that we can demand any price for it but the demand for it is so high and strong very strong it's very consistent throughout the whole year that the level of increase we feel would be minimal because they value the product they don't want to put such a barrier in place to reduce or to increase the cost of it they still want that product so we feel that negotiations on tariff will be in our favour so to speak that while there will be an increase it will be offset the increase in demand for the product now there's a queue of people waiting to come in and Alistair's been waiting the longest so I'm going to do it in the order that you revealed your question so Alistair first I have to agree with much of what Michael said the demand is far outstripping the supply in our sector it's probably the same situation with Michael and I can't imagine Europe placing tariffs upon the product that we have which is second to none on the planet for the sake of giving UK a bloody nose and they can't do that to our fishermen and one of the most encouraging things that I've seen through my position as national co-ordinator for the Scottish Creel Fishermen's Federation is that over the past two years I've been receiving inquiries from as far as a way as China for the product that we're actually selling and in recent times they've actually developed a railway system that comes all the way from China to France it takes seven weeks but nevertheless they've developed this because they want products from Europe now Scotland we've got a tunnel now so we can get all the way to China now so there's many benefits coming our way and it would be extremely foolish of Europe to give us a bloody nose on that one there may be some locals that will miss their shellfish if they all disappear but Scott you want to come in We've sort of worst case scenario with regard to potentially there could be what's been described as a hard Brexit clean Brexit and we know now from the Prime Minister's statement that they're looking for a clean Brexit and therefore on WTO tariff favourite nation status we would be incurring a 2 per cent tariff on fresh salmon a 13 per cent tariff on smoked salmon and so putting that to one side I then go and look at the significant fluctuations in the market prices we've had in the last 12 months 2015 into the European Union a Scottish salmon attained £3.92 a kilo and in 2016 attained £5.74 a kilo that's a 46 per cent rise in what we were retaining as market price so that's a huge variation huge increase beneficial to us and you know if you put it in that context is the background context the tariff is negligible whatever the tariff happens to become it really is negligible our biggest challenge is actually producing enough to meet the demand no matter we've got a major competitor a few hundred miles away across the North Sea that is our biggest challenge and I take on board Alasdair's points about safeguarding other species and you know something that we're spending inordinate amounts of money and about to do a lot more to help in that situation and so you know that's our big challenge our challenge I foresee in all of this is not about tariffs it's actually about any potential physical impediments to moving perishable goods quickly to market we can get a fresh Scottish salmon on the white linen tablecloth in Manhattan within 24 hours of harvest and we likewise can do that in the European Union as well but that's on a kind of the very free movement physical movement of the fish so there are no barriers paper barriers or whatever you want to call it physical barriers at the marine ports or the airports it's the big challenge it's not really the tariff I feel eyes boring into me from all directions I will try and get round you all Robin you are next I understand perfectly the logic of what Michael is saying I just feel that EU practice is not entirely on your side it looks as though what we will end up with post Brexit is a free trade agreement of some kind between the UK and the EU most free trade agreements that the EU has concluded with other states do not include free trade in fish or agricultural products even with Norway tariffs are payable on imports of many fishery products from Norway into the EU so I'm not convinced that the EU is going to necessarily give us a good deal on that the other thing I think is Scott's point about documentation which is that if you export any kind of perishable goods to the EU you have to comply with EU sanitary standards and have to have the documentation to show that you'll comply as far as the fish catching side is concerned there will have to be documentation showing that the EU's rules of origin are being complied with as well so I think from a trade point of view Brexit is a nightmare because apart from the tariffs issue it will increase enormously the amount of documentation required Stuart, do you want to come in at that stage? I have two things the documentation one has now been covered so I'll skip that I just wanted to make the general point that probably in tariff terms fluctuation in currency is a much bigger influence on the amount of money that the industry can make and currently that's the bigger and more difficult to manage threat so that was it Scott I agree with you Stuart but the currency against the euro was the 12%-15% movement but 46% that's a quarter of that it's the dynamics of the market really is the driver I was going to say Scott I'll come back to you in a minute but you sort of jumped the gun I'll let you away with it on this occasion because Alistair was waiting for the documentation and the hopes that we might have to jump through might be another way of getting us documentation is proving a grave concern Bercy Last little thought we must not imagine that the single market or Europe is the only market in the world 33 countries, 400 million people there's another 178 of them out there with 7.5 billion people in it 10 sanctions were applied and we lost the pelagic fish market we were able in fairly short order to reset that fish to other markets and opened up a market in the Far East which has been very good thus far and to Africa for the lower priced fish therefore there is another world out there which will be open to us and we shouldn't forget that Michael did you want to come in and you lost track and there were certainly hands fly up and down My point was to latch on to something that Scott said that a lot of our members are keen to expand their business to take advantage of increased orders but are just holding back because of the uncertainty of what's going to happen but once everybody knows what they're faced with and all the agreements have been reached our sector is looking to move ahead and expand Jamie, you'd indicated that you wanted to come in as well Just an observation the whole point of tariffs taking it right back to the fundamental rationale behind them surely originally was to stop importing produce competing products therefore tariffs would try and stabilise those markets in the instances of salmon for example they were selling into countries which have neither the ability nor the desire to produce those products and I'm really glad to hear that Bertie thinks there is a worldwide demand for products outside of the EU single market but I was really intrigued by Scott's point about it isn't just about tariffs it's actually about some of the more logistical buyers that might be in place that would prevent these markets from flourishing so I think that's something maybe from a political point of view it's worth bearing in mind that it's not just about contracts and financial tariffs it's actually about the physical logistics and that's something I'll certainly take away from this meeting Thank you Scott, you jumped the gun but do you want to go back to something you were going to say earlier or are you happy? Can I ask if there's any other I'm sorry, I know you want to come in Just a quick point, I appreciate this session that's mainly about export but just to take the opportunity to remember or emphasise the potential for shortening supply change as well and keeping good high quality produce and growing the markets for those within Scotland and the UK as well in terms of opportunities and things to incentivise irrespective of constitutional arrangements one wants to come in and Michael wants to come in on the back There seems to be a bit of a contradiction with my position of sporting earlier about sustainable and then talking about transporting food halfway around the world so I think it is about trying to maximise local production and consumption Michael wants to come in Totally agree with the point that Colin made and backed up there by John that this is an opportunity that could work in our favour to reduce the imports of fish which would in turn increase the demand for local fish to be used throughout the country It is ironic that we export 80 per cent of what we catch 80 per cent of what we eat is imported This would be an ideal opportunity to try and redress the balance to minimise imports which would be offset by the increase availability of raw material from the catching sector which the processing sector could handle and for those that can't export whether it's to Europe or wider a field where sales within the UK would be welcomed by all sectors Michael would give the value of these 280 per cent if he has them No, I don't I'm going to come to Alistair but we're coming to the end of this session and I think it's fair to give the people who've been kind enough to give us evidence that there are two questions coming your way so you might want to gather your thoughts to them while Alistair is one is a very simple one is to ask are there any other implications for your sectors which you haven't had a chance to bring up during the course of this evidence session and then a final point is to ask you for one point that needs to be done now to prepare for leaving for the EU so those are the two questions in conclusion I will ask other members around the table before we come to those if they've got questions but I'll ask Alistair to give I'd like to go back to John regarding the supply chain and how far your product travels it was only a couple of years ago that we had fish and chip shop of the year awards and sea fish, the body responsible for looking after the interests of the fishermen who prosecute their fishery in the North Sea actually went abroad to pick up the fish for the purpose of the Scottish fish shop in a year award Michael, I'll let you come back I don't want it to be a I went on Russia TV with that one Michael, you'll get a say about product here Yes, that fish and chip award is actually sponsored by Norway Yes I see this is going to delve into areas which we're never going to get to the bottom of the list Okay, I think everyone round the table will say that the fish produced in Scotland is excellent fish and caught by Scottish fishermen is excellent as well so can I ask members just before we ask each of those who've given evidence if there's any other questions that members would like to ask sorry Mike I asked in the chamber Mike Russell in Minister for Brexit yesterday about full membership of the European Union Mike Russell's response in the chamber yesterday was that the Scottish Government's aim is to have full membership of the European Union so there could be a scenario where we leave the European Union and after a referendum we come back into the European Union I wondered whether anybody had any thoughts about that I think we might understand your question I wonder if that might be one better to left hanging at the moment because that may open up a whole lot more John, you had a different question Yes, my question would be if in Bertie Armstrong's perfect world we do have a huge increase in our catch will that be spread around amongst more vessels and more owners or would it just make the existing what I think are quite a small number of big ships a lot richer Very good question We wrote specifically as part of our suite of evidence for this whole issue an inshaw paper and it would be perverse if we just ended up with the present catchers swelling that doesn't work there is an opportunity here to spread the largesse or to spread the opportunity much further and we're committed to do that Okay, perfect I think I am going to leave it there and ask if I may ask the witnesses then if the and maybe we could start with you Scott, is there anything that we haven't you haven't raised and would you give us one thing that you believe needs to be done to prepare now for leaving the EU Sure Yeah, I mean the one thing I think if the UK Government being the negotiating Government can get early agreement on the security of EU migrants I think that would be an early thing and I think there's certainly pressure in the public domain about that whether they've got any control over that it seems to me that the EU itself is being recalcitrant on that point but I think that's something that would be helpful for all of us The only other thing is in our paper the Scottish Government paper seems well our Scotland's place in Europe seeks a differentiated solution and now we know that if it doesn't get one there's obviously going to be another referendum and I don't want to get political here but I do need to make the point because I've been instructed but we must make the point the UK market is absolutely crucial to our future in Scottish farm salmon and we need to do all we can to ensure that there are no impediments to the market forever basically Michael, I'm a happy for you to leave it there Michael, would you like to say something? I would say the one thing that we would like to be made now so to speak would be the guarantee of the EU nationals that are already here and I'm pretty sure that would be for any industry not just the fish processing sector but for any industry in our country that's reliant on the EU nationals it's vital for them we can't replace them and other implications we've touched on all the points that I had the tariff, single market access sustainability, investment employment but there's now the double uncertainty we came up until last Friday thinking about what Brexit is going to do for us and before we know what Brexit is going to do for us we now have this political uncertainty shall we say about what Scotland wants to do personally we would rather have had Brexit dealt with and out of it seen where the country was and then dealt with the second question Bertie briefest possible terms the implication is there but not the statement that the balance of benefit from Brexit from the sea of opportunity far outweighs the challenges that are coming our way and it's just worth saying that that we regard this whole thing as perhaps one of the bright spots the one point that we would make is that we make a plea to both governments to work together under any constitutional arrangement that we do not end up back inside the common fisheries policy because to borrow a phrase from our Norwegian friends which we were very taken with yesterday if this is well handled it will keep the lights on in coastal communities around the whole of the United Kingdom which wouldn't be kept on otherwise Alistair he was the latter part of Bertie's statement to keep the lights on in rural communities around our coastlines furthermore I think we've got to try and look at this as an opportunity and if we look at it as an opportunity it might be an opportunity to bring more of our own folk back into the industry from where we've lost villages etc and see if it's under which we work Calum, I'm nervous on your list two quick things I didn't mention in terms of implications bycatch so it's important that whatever arrangements we have effectively address bycatch of marine birds, marine mammals basking sharks, turtles as part of the spatial measures that we think can deliver more benefit and more can be done using them to meet environmental criteria functional unit management should be looked at the actual grounds that fish and shellfish associate with and the point that needs to be done now before leaving the EU to echo Bertie and Alistair it's about all four administrations working together including Wales and Northern Ireland the joint ministerial councils the place where that could and should be happening and that they work together in order to come up with governance and management arrangements that are compliant with Arhus Arhus convention irrespective of constitutional arrangements and that deliver socially just fishing within environmental limits and environmentally just thank you and Robin if I could ask you to thank you I'm really here in a personal capacity so I don't represent any sector but one thing I would stress which I don't think we've said a lot about this morning is the importance of having a management authority or management authorities in place on day one of Brexit that are well staffed equipped with the necessary expertise and at the moment it seems to be to me to be unrather unclear as to where this is whether there's going to be what the relationship will be between a UK authority and the devolved administrations but we really have to have this sorted out before day one of Brexit and I also agree very much with what Callum has said about sustainability thank you can I thank everyone who came to the committee to this morning I think you've left us with food for thought and things to think about it's been I think a very productive meeting and I thank you for engaging with us I'm sure during the course of this committee's remit we may be coming back to you to ask for further information but on behalf of us all I'd like to thank you and I'd like to now briefly suspend the meeting to allow you to go in the committee to reorganise for the next session thank you I'd like to move to agenda item 2 which is on seatbelts on school transport Scotland bill on Wednesday 8 March the Parliament agreed that the rural economy and connectivity committee should be the designated as a lead committee in consideration of the seatbelts on school transport Scotland bill at stage 1 this is a members bill introduced by Gillian Martin and supported by the Scottish Government to begin the committee's scrutiny of the bill we'd like to take evidence from the Scottish Government officials who are providing support to the member in charge of the bill and I'd welcome Brendan Rooney and Kenneth Hannaway and would ask if one of you would like to make an opening statement on the bill and then we'd like to move on to questions so who would like to make an opening? Yes, that'd be me. Morning, convener and members thanks for having us today I'll just set out some opening remarks to give you the wider context and how we've got to the position where I am and then happy to take questions safety on the journey to and from school is something that the Scottish Government obviously takes as a matter of pivotal it's borne out in a range of measures taken nationally to keep pupils safe not just within motor vehicles but also in relation to youngsters walking or cycling to school given the safety benefits of seatbelts are well established and internationally recognised the proposals in this bill are seen to make a valuable contribution to those wider aims the development of these legislative proposals have some history to them and are not new to Parliament and are considered by the Public Petitions Committee some years ago Scottish ministers subsequently stated their intention to act and power was devolved via section 30 order during the previous parliamentary session the bill follows the introduction of similar measures in Wales after a comparable devolution instrument given that the intention to legislate was announced in 2014 it has allowed a substantial amount of engagement with stakeholders and parties involved of dedicated school transport as such there's been a collaborative approach to the proposals that are before you central to all this has been the seatbelts on school transport working group which includes key partners such as local government to the bus industry parenting groups, regional transport partnerships additionally a thorough exercise has been undertaken in partnership with COSLA and the Scottish local government partnership in order to forecast the cost implications of the policy which are set out in detail in the financial memorandum which has been submitted to committee the Scottish government has welcomed the partnership working and the contribution of local government to these endeavours what's clear from the engagement is that there's a very varied picture nationally regarding dedicated school transport this ranges from double-decker buses transporting pupils in busy urban settings to single-decker coaches taking youngsters to school on rural rail roads for councils such provision is linked to statutory duties regarding the distances pupils live from their school within the education Scotland act 1980 granted an independent schools align their provision with their own policies local authority provision is overwhelmingly delivered via contracts with private bus operators these vary in size scope and specification and can be quite different across the country depending on our council's needs a local authority can stipulate various measures within a contract such as the standard of a vehicle or on-board features like CCTV Wi-Fi or indeed seatbelts councils are increasingly writing seatbelts into these contracts recent returns show 18 do so on all dedicated school transport already and the bill aims for this practice to become universal as a matter of law it will apply to all dedicated transport vehicles such as buses many buses and taxis including those owned by local authorities and school providers dedicated school transport is quite distinct from the public bus service which some councils do use to meet their statutory duties by giving pupils season tickets or paying for individual journeys extending these legislative measures to that provision would be out with the scope of powers devolved to hollery run the issue the bill's proposals don't mandate specific measures to be taken in respect of individual vehicles such as whether retrofitting existing buses or coaches with seatbelts or for a private operator to renew the fleet or reorder the fleet such decisions will be for private bus companies and the industry regularly shows flexibility and adaptability to meet shifting contractual considerations the granted and independent school sector report that they are dedicated to school transport is almost universally provided with seatbelts at present also existing UK law means since 2001 all new buses and coaches on UK roads that are not designed for what classes urban use have to have seatbelts fitted therefore older vehicles that are taken off the road through wear and tear are just generally retired from the fleet and the ones that replace them are more likely to have belts fitted in future additionally with regard to young people with additional support needs or those who may need adjustable straps due to the height of the youngster the bill's provisions have been drafted to allow for this the statutory definition of seatbelt which is used aligns with UK laws which stipulate that special belts or restraints can be used in place for instance where a young person has mobility issues or maybe in a wheelchair the law on seatbelt wearing and dedicated school transport are reserved matter however the bill represents an opportunity to promote successful approaches and wider awareness of the issue councils and schools use a variety of methods to regulate behaviour on school buses and to encourage seatbelt wearing an 18 have already implemented the measures that will be in the bill extensive dialogues taking place with local government, parenting groups and other stakeholders and this will continue in order on statutory guidance that will help promote good practice around seatbelt wearing that goes alongside any final act the Scottish Government conducted a three month public consultation on the proposals last year the analysis is before committee for consideration this garnered feedback from organisations and people across civic society such as parents in schools with respondees overwhelmingly stating it would be a useful contribution to road safety thanks and we welcome any questions you have thank you the first question is coming from Stuart I want to ask a couple of questions about why the bill and why the Government supports the bill to underpin that can you tell us how many children are injured travelling in school transport would be affected by this legislation there are actually figures collated on the number of children injured on dedicated school transport certainly the number of children up to 16 injured on buses and coaches in Scotland is around 45 a year that's for all provision though that's not dedicated school transport and it's not possible to extrapolate from the figures the precise numbers on dedicated school transport of that 45 have you anything you can indicate to the committee as what proportion of that 45 would not have been injured if seatbelts had been available to that child there's not been an analysis done of that it's worth noting though these are children on the bus if a child had been injured just after disembarking that would be counted in statistical terms as a pedestrian so yes indeed that's clearly quite a different issue so it could be as many as 45 but we can expect to be rather less than that so let me try and come at it for a slightly different angle can you tell us anything about the nature of the injuries the 45 suffered in other words are they comparatively minor ones or are they significant injuries or a mix of those average three on average annually were serious and 42 were what's deemed as slight in statistical terms so so basically we've got the statistical underpinnings and I've had constituents who've been on the case of this bill for a long time and I've supported them in doing so but given the progress that seems to be being made and the numbers you're giving us why is the government supporting this bill well the government's stated intention for the legislation does go back a number of years to the previous administration during the last parliamentary session as it stated at the beginning seatbelts are well established safety mechanism and government feels that there would be a useful contribution to road safety on the school run I think that's it I think we can take that up with Gideon Martin when she comes in I've got a question if I may for you could you just explain to me the idea of why it was 2018 for primary schools and 2021 for secondary schools and why it was decided to make a differentiation there The proposal is for the measures to be phased and to come in the legal obligation to come in in 2018 for primary school vehicles in 2021 for secondary there has been extensive dialogue with those who deliver the provision the bus industry and councils the transition needed is greater within the vehicles used for secondary school more of those aren't currently fitted with seatbelts so the timescale was arrived at in consultation and collaboration with those delivering it to accelerate it the feedback that we got was that it would put quite significant pressure on councils and the bus industry and could lead to contracts being broken which may greatly increase costs on local government I understand that but one of the questions that Stuart asked you was to do with injuries and you indicated that some of the injuries recorded, the 45 injuries recorded of which two were serious were people under the age of 16 and you were unable to say what split that was it might be that more secondary school pupils are injured on buses than primary school pupils and therefore there might be an increased need to accelerate that was that considered when the bill was bought for it? It was considered yes it has been looked at implementation dates were discussed and the range of options there's obviously a balance to be found there it is the safety sorry the statistics we have we can't differentiate between secondary and primary so I can't give you the split there Again that may be a question that I take forward with Gillian John do you want to come in with us? Yes absolutely You said when you were speaking earlier that it doesn't cover registered bus services but am I right in saying it doesn't also cover school trips and I'd be a little bit puzzled by that if the children were brought to school with a compliant bus but were taken to the swimming baths or something without it It's correct that the bill as drafted at present doesn't cover school trips school trips are subject to quite stringent and robust risk assessment that's done and placing duties on what's called the group leader usually a teacher which stipulate seat belts are to be booked on the buses that they use there is quite a distinct provision in that home to school transport is organised at sort of local authority level for local authority wide whereas a school trip is often a teacher booking a bus for their individual class there is a system in place to well as guidance in place that promotes seat belts and stipulates that they should be booked on that but it's right that the bills currently drafted doesn't cover school trips Sorry can I just push that because I think that's a very interesting point I mean the guidance for teachers is to book seat belts but there's no obligation apart from the guidance I mean it's not a legal requirement to have seat belts it is that what you're saying on school visit because I think that parents would find that difficult to understand the split between the two Yes, I mean that's right there isn't a legal obligation on teachers to or group leaders to ensure seat belts are I mean in practice it's universally feedback is that it's universally done and the guidance is very well adhered to but that's correct that the bill is drafted doesn't cover that provision Okay Mike do you want to come in on that David's line of questioning on this Is just to explain to me would you please involve power to legislate to ensure that school trips use seat belts where they are provided Is that a Is that devolved to us or not Is that a UK legislative authority No that is devolved So we could do it now, we could do it in this bill Technically I believe Okay thank you An amendment perhaps Okay maybe we can consider that further Richard the next question was from you Good morning As a grandfather I could take my grandkids to school I have to have two seats in the back with seat belts and I've got to ensure that they're well fastened in but yet we still have 18 we have 18 local authorities who already require all dedicated transport to be fitted with seat belts We've got 32 councils so 14 of them are not and a further six who are requiring in some contracts that services for primary school pupils or a particular type of vehicle that they need seat belts You made an interesting comment about the factor of new buses coming on but there's still 110 buses which have not been fitted by with seat belts and I would contend that with the greatest respect most of these buses are quite old if you look at the buses that are going about and spewing out their diesel as they go along the road ffumes you'll be interested in that John I suppose but basically the situation is why have these other authorities and this has not been on to go for the last couple of years this has been on to go for a number of years why have the other authorities totally not insisting that we have seat belts on these buses is it because the people who have tender still have buses which are ancient and they don't want to spend the money to bring them up to standard or is it a case of not insisting that they've got to change them and get it sorted There's a couple of points it's a variety of issues from council to council certainly it's a fair assumption that some of these buses will be older vehicles when I said at the beginning since 2001 there is a any new bus that comes on to the UK road we'd have to have seat belts fitted unless it's designed for urban use so that means double-deckers are designed for urban use and if it has standing room so you'll see single-deckers used on commercial bus services that don't have seat belts fitted and it's the stipulation around having standing room which means it's designed for urban use so larger coaches that are often used in more rural authorities given the faster roads and the more rural environment are more likely to already adhere to those wider UK laws it's certainly fair to say that councils have also been increasingly doing this since the ministerial announcement was weighed in 2014 so there has been over recent years an increased number doing it in preparation for the legislation given that we knew powers were being devolved via section 30 order there was a good amount of time to engage with councils in the bus industry to help them to get ready for this and make the transition and that has been borne out in the feedback that we've had that it's increasingly happening in the run-up to legislative measures You're basically saying that the buses that have been fitted in rural are being fitted in rural areas and council areas or council authorities in that area but one area particularly interesting is near my area it falls within the Glasgow South Ayrshire, East Renfrewshire Western Barchonshire area it comes under the SPT Stratforid passenger transport why is it heavily that they don't have seatbelts fitted is it something that is particularly averse in the SPT area I mean I don't know if the committee will take evidence from SPT certainly they contract for a number of local authorities in the west of Scotland and so do run quite an extensive number of contracts with various bus operators feedback from SPT to us is that they're increasingly writing in the seatbelt stipulation as it we move towards legislation I can't see categorically the decisions they make on individual contracts I mean that, as with any other local authority or regional transport partnership the option is there for them to write seatbelts in it may well depend on provision in the area and what bus operators are offering but I can't vouch for the decisions that they would personally make the occasions of the bill what will that mean for the SPT you know, is it a case that SPT are pushing the operators are not or not pushing the operators because they don't want to rock the boat or is it a case that as the contracts come up and are renewed then they can turn around and say you need to put in seatbelts yes, I think it would be done when contracts are renewed rather than partway through a contract because that could be quite difficult to change the terms of a contract midway through it's certainly fair to say feedback to the Scottish Government has been increasingly writing us into contracts and they are phasing this in as it progresses towards legislation as I said, they do have a wide number of contracts for various local authorities so my understanding is that they don't categorically do it on all of them at the moment but they are increasingly moving towards it thanks very much Cymru okay, thank you Richard Mike, I think you've got some questions on enforcement thank you very much Cymru can I just first of all say the absolutely right idea that we have seatbelts in schools, the point of the committee's work now is to interrogate the bill and to see whether actually the bill is fit for purpose for the process my questions really focus on enforcement I mean, as I understand it correct me if I'm wrong that if we pass this bill and therefore we require school transport to have seatbelts we're not requiring them to be used is that right? to be worn, you mean well that's a reserved that is a still a reserved issue so there aren't actually powers so we can't legislate for that not to put a duty on but I asked you just now whether we could legislate for school trips for people to use this you said we did have the power oh sorry, that's perhaps my perhaps not being clear we can't legislate on any provision for the wearing of seatbelts legislation could be passed to not on school trips either not on school trips either my question therefore is if we can't enforce this if we pass this law and the law is purely about getting the things fitted is this the right way to go about it my question is has the Scottish Government I think everybody supported of this process has the Scottish Government asked the UK Government to use the legislative power it has to put a bill through that would allow both fitting and the enforcement of the use has that question been asked by the Scottish Government to my knowledge it hasn't I could write to committee with some I'm not certain my thought is that it hasn't but I think there may well be a reluctance to devolve beyond the scope of what's going on I'm not talking about devolving I'm asking whether the Scottish Government has asked the UK Government to legislate for this because what I'm fearful of are we spend time in this committee in the Parliament passing this legislation which I want to see effective we have a big tick in the box the job done and then when we find the bill being injured so I really want whoever does it to have the best solution and I just wanted to check it would be very helpful if you could let the committee know in writing therefore to the convener whether the Scottish Government has asked the UK Government to do this so we don't go off half-cock as it were Can you just clarify is it a legal requirement to wear a seatbelt on a bus in the United Kingdom The movie comes back convener to Mr Rumble's point the wearing seatbelts are fairly intricate as you might imagine a set of statutory provisions that cover that the short answer to your question is no there are various exceptions exemptions I think Brendan one of the examples is children under 14 and particular types of vehicle coaches although that is something that I think there's an EU directive which has not yet been implemented by the EFT but is under consideration so there's a framework and it's not universally applicable but I can be with just to help clarify as well the point I don't know if it was adequate to clarify or not for Mr Rumble's but the question is to watch reserved devolved I think I took from your earlier point it was more about the question of we're doing a particular thing with this bill in relation to effectively school transport between home and school which is right and I think your question was could that be widened out to school trips during the day etc and the answer to that question is yes because the section 30 order talks about effectively devolves this sort of thing in relation to arrangements for persons travelling to and from places where they receive education or training so the thing that we're doing here is a category between home and school but that could be widened out to school trips it's not about the actual wearing or enforcement of any so there's no enforcement about that it's the requirement that education authorities will have under contracts that buses provided used for this type of provision will have CVLs fitted I understand what you've just told me I'm going to look at this if I may, from somebody whose child is on a bus and just say something horrific happens and they get injured on the bus they turn around and they say the Scottish government made it law that seat belts had to be fitted on the bus but there's no requirement of anyone to wear a seat belt on the bus so the onus is on the school teachers to make it an acceptable practice to wear the seat belts on the bus and therefore what we're saying is the Scottish government is saying fit seat belts, school teachers have got to encourage children to do it job done it doesn't think, I don't think that parents in Scotland would feel that that was right I wondered if that's a question we should be asking the minister or is that your point Mike it is we've got a whole system of enforcement questions because they're legitimate ones but what I'm taking from the officials is that actually there is no enforcement about this in legislative terms this bill, as I understand it correct me if I'm wrong it's only coming to like now this bill before us is purely about a technical aspect of having seat belts fitted it's not about any other issue about whether kids are safe travelling to and from school on buses with seat belts fitted and I think if we're going to take legislation through we should be comprehensive and attack the problem which we all foresee is there and the potential we'd rather go off half cock on this if I can use that expression whether bill that doesn't cover what people's worries are can I just say slightly in defence that I've probably jumped the gun by making that comment because we are having two evidence sessions with people and I think those are the questions we can reasonably ask whether it's a on the point that the convener just said there it's not school teachers who will be on a bus at eight o'clock in the morning it'll be the bus driver taking the kids from the farthest away point to the school so actually it'll be the bus driver who will need to say to the kids put your seat belt on now I don't see the bus driver stopping every two minutes to check to see if people have got their seat belt on so the point Mr Rumble's made is quite valid so who's going to be liable for enforcement if there is any enforcement Richard, I'm not sure that these two gentlemen may give us the answer and it may be something we could take up if you want to give us a short answer to that is that correct what Richard is saying well yeah, it's very beliefly yes, the legal measures around that on seat belt wearing are the reserved to Westminster and overseen by a sort of EU framework what happens in practice councils have various ways of monitoring and improving behaviour on school buses some of them use bus monitors so it's not always just the driver some use prefects or older children who help the youngsters to put their belts on we've had a lot of engagement with local government on this and there seem to be quite innovative measures that do take place and as I was setting out at the start we do envisage quite comprehensive guidance that will help look at the best approaches to this but it is fair to say that the question on that matter is out with the scope of the powers that have been devolved that the bill takes forward John, I think you want to make a comment Mae, Cymru, on that is I mean the officials have obviously been given a chance of doing a job and they're doing it very thoroughly and a sense of the frustrations that Mike and indeed yourself have and it might be appropriate for this committee to seek the devolution of the necessary powers that have caused the frustration here because I mean it's one of a range of frustrations that some of us might have about presumably is an option that we could I think the committee needs to consider whether the bill is achieving what it's setting out to do which is safeguarding children and I think that is the critical thing that we need to consider John wants to come in I take the point that you're making John, on finance No, just on this, sorry Okay, a technical one I'll walk because you said that good practice amongst local authorities is that they have somebody on would it be in the powers could we put an amendment to this to save this bill could we put an amendment to the bill which would put a duty on local authorities to have some sort of person whatever it is on the bus to make sure that they can do that just a thought Is that within our powers legislative powers? I think that we'd have to write to the committee certainly that is a different issue from the section 30 instrument that devolved power on fitting of seatbelts that was something we'd have to we'd have to look at more why Okay Stuart and then Reddraith, I mean just to be clear I'm on the same subject but I want to engage directly in the drafting of the bill it may be of Rhoda's question might properly proceed mine My question is about a duty of care because while there is no legal responsibility people send their children to school and when they hand them over to the authority that's local parenters or whatever if the child was in an accident without wearing their seatbelt one would imagine the parent would have come back against the authority because they weren't acting in local parenters and they weren't making sure that the child so under kind of health and safety and negligence legislation there might be a come back I'm happy Brendan that you're looking at that you want to consider that whether it would be writing back to the committee before we take our evidence session because I think that is a key question which runs through the themes of the points that people have made Yep, most certainly we'll take those away and and set them out Great, come here to officials because I'm presuming the drafting of the bill lay in your purview Essentially of the six sections there are two active sections and that section is one and section four and I take that also from the commencement arrangements which essentially commence those two sections at a later date chosen by ministers Now section one is commendably brief and it says a school authority must ensure that each motor vehicle has a seat belt for each passenger seat That's fine but section four on the face of it appears to introduce some doubt because it now requires each school authority to provide a compliance statement each year on whether they have done what in section one they must do and I just wonder whether it's something that I'm going to see the answer to in the secondary legislation under transitional transitory saving provisions comes along that will show that the must element is not immediate but phased is that a correct hypothesis that I'm bringing forward? I think that's right Mr Seames I think that the plan is there are the high level dates there's the section one duty but there will be an intention that the transition because you'll recall that there's no intention at this stage to be requiring authorities to break contracts so that the nuts and bolts of the transition will come exactly at your point For the whole point of having section four which if one were to read appears to be pointless the whole point of section four is because we expect it to be phased and therefore we require authorities to produce annual reports so that we can monitor as a parliament what's going on which leads then to just a modest supplementary question I presume at some point where all authorities are reporting 100% compliance we'll be able to suspend the requirement in section four so that more and more receive reports from authorities that tell us what we are any new I'll just note that I think that's very helpful Good, thank you Final question if I may relates to finance and I think John wants to start on that Thanks convener As I understand it at the financial memorandum we're talking about £8.92 million as the cost of this part of me wonders why there's any cost that authorities have achieved seat belts on buses presumably just because gradually the buses have improved as they would have done with disabled access lower emissions a whole lot of improvements on buses generally why do we feel we have to give MD any money to improve the buses in this regard The costs are increased contract costs the local government's outlay by putting more stipulations on a contract it generally leads to a cost increase so by adding extra stipulations contract costs do go up that's how the figures have been arrived at they were conducted it is quite challenging to isolate the actual precise cost because there are a range of options that would be open to a private bus operator to meet a contract so essentially there are forecasts that are based on the contracting authority councils essentially taking a forecast into the future on what previous increases have been and essentially applying that to future contracts so they're based on a forecast of increased contract costs into the future it is fair to say as we've discussed that some buses may well go out of service anyway or may not the Scottish Government does have an understanding with local government that any what are called new burdens are costed and unrobustly looked at in financial terms and that's the exercise that we undertook with local government which has arrived at those figures it would appear to be rewarding the bad authorities who haven't done what they should have done before and the 18 authorities who presumably have found the money by trimming their library services or something are losing out it would appear and it means 8.92 million if my maths is correct is that 89,000 per bus if it's 100 buses well as I say it's not something that's been worked out at a per bus cost it's a yearly annual increase the distribution of it isn't only to the 18 councils I mean COSLA's and SLGP do negotiate on behalf of all their members and it's not something that would have seemed fair that councils who had already done this didn't receive some kind of financial recompense for it so it is the national local government figure it's not a breakdown between 18 I mean the precise distribution of which is something that's worked out as all local government funding is in negotiation with local government representative bodies and looked at in the block grant so it's not a local authority breakdown council by council I'll leave it at that I feel that you may be asking this question again at an evidence session later Ray, do you want to come in on that? How will the additional money be distributed because you know John's talking about councils who have got good practice being penalised but at the same time the councils who haven't done this have done it maybe because they can't afford to do it so if the money is going into the normal block grant then everyone gets a share and some councils will be able to pocket by having to recontract for a higher price it's fraught with I suppose unfairness because do you penalise one or do you not fully compensate the other? I suppose it's fair to say that we are officials in the transport department and local government financing perhaps isn't something we are immensely immersed in the nuances of my understanding though is the settlement and distribution this is looking at local government as a whole exactly how much as a portion to individual local authorities is something that is decided in conjunction with local government and the Scottish Government in the round of the block settlement so we are not in a position to give a detailed breakdown of what money is going where the overall costs in the financial memorandum make a forecast on the national figure to local government there isn't a breakdown of what is going at this stage as what is going to individual councils get that as part of the bill consideration because obviously that's going to be one of the things that's going to come to us as a committee we'll certainly look at what at this stage can be what we can give to committee at this stage that's an endeavour to give us as much information as we can on how that will be in the future distributed there's one third question from Richard and he's promised it's going to be a quick one it will be a quick one I just can't get I could never get it when I was a local authority c