Good morning and welcome to the 11th meeting in 2017 of the Royal Economy and Connectivity Committee. Mobile phones should be on-silent and have now apologies. The first item on the agenda is the consideration of a negative instrument, as detailed on the agenda. The committee will take evidence from the cabinet secretary for the Royal Economy and Connectivity and this item has been tabled as a motion to annul, this instrument has been lodged. I would like to welcome Fergus Ewing, the cabinet secretary for rural economy and connectivity, who brings with him Jim Watson, the inshore fisheries team leader of Marine Scotland sea fisheries policy, and Tom Robinson, the head of surveillance and enforcement of Marine Scotland compliance, all of who are obviously of the Scottish Government. I would invite you, cabinet secretary, to make a short opening statement if I may. I'm grateful to have the opportunity today to explain why the measures contained in the statutory instrument are important to reduce the incidents of illegal commercial unlicensed fishing. You should all have a copy of my letter to yourself, convener of 20 March, which did respond in detail to a number of points, so I'll keep my remarks brief. First, it's important to separate genuine hobby fishermen from illegal unlicensed commercial fishing, and it's the latter that we are concerned with. I want to make it crystal clear at the outset that I fully support the right of hobby fishermen to enjoy their hobby, but I also want to have the tools in place to be able to tackle those unlicensed illegal commercial fishermen who hide behind the guise of hobby fishermen. I accept that the enforcement of fisheries' rules is challenging. That's not surprising given that the activity takes place at sea and given the length of our coastline. However, and let me be clear about this, the introduction of catch limits for unlicensed fishermen will significantly improve Marine Scotland fisheries officers' ability to tackle the issue at the moment. Fisheries officers have to basically try and catch fishermen in the act of selling their catch for gain—an extremely difficult task. I'm very pleased, convener, that Tom Robertson is here today because he has a wealth of experience which members may well wish to troll later. Since being appointed, I have listened carefully to the views of fishermen on a variety of topics. I know that those in the fishing industry who, let's not forget, make their living from the sea, feel passionately about the issue. Indeed, both national fishing federations, the Creel Fishermen's Federation and the Fishermen's Federation, with a combined membership of more than 1,000 vessel owners fully support the introduction of catch limits, as do our two mainland inshore fisheries groups, as do our statutory environmental advisors, Scottish natural heritage, who are also fully supportive. The fishing industry recognises that a problem exists and that something needs to be done to address it. Some inshore stocks, convener, are under pressure and we certainly can't have licensed fishermen taking steps and introducing conservation measures, while leaving the back door open to unlicensed fishing activity. It is understandable that people will resist new restrictions being placed in their activities. In this case, I am aware of one individual. In any case, although one single fisherman may have little impact on either stocks or the market, the collective impact can be considerable and must be managed if we want to secure a sustainable and profitable fishing industry. In introducing limits on what unlicensed fishermen can take from the sea, I did consider what arrangements were in place elsewhere. It is interesting to note that Scotland is unique amongst our neighbours in that we currently have no catch limits. For example, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, Wales, the Isle of Man and many parts of the English coast where shell fishing is significant, including the waters that adjoin ours in Cumbria, have all introduced catch limits for unlicensed fishermen to help to manage their fisheries. Those are measures that are in place, convener, elsewhere in effect. Indeed, many of those areas go much further than our proposals, with most requiring permits to be obtained and some also requiring reporting of catches. Catch limits will provide clarity for all as to what unlicensed fishermen may take and will support targeting of unlicensed commercial fishermen whilst allowing genuine hobby fishermen to continue fishing. No one, convener, wants to stop that. To close, I would like to quote from the west coast inshore fisheries group chair, Alastair McNeill, who said that, to annul the proposed order, would be a retrograde step that is outwith current thinking in regards to inshore fisheries conservation and management aims and objectives. A view also supported by leading fishing representatives such as Duncan McKinnis of the Western Owls Fishing Association. It is clear to me that many in the fishing industry will feel badly let down by Parliament should this measure be overturned today. Thank you for the opportunity to put those points. Thank you, cabinet secretary. The first question, if I may, is from Mike. There are various other members with questions. Mike, if you would like to lead off this. Thank you, convener. I am pleased to see Tom Robertson here, because I have a number of questions that I think goes to the nub of this issue. It is about enforcement compliance. Since the commercial fishing without a licence is already illegal. First, I would like to know how many convictions have there been in the last year for this illegal activity? One. How many prosecutions have there been? One. The same one. How many arrests have there been with this issue? I will be talking about just one incident. No, there have been many incidents, but one that we have taken all the way to prosecution. There has only been one prosecution. To the minister, I would particularly like to ask in the options on the impact assessment. There are only two options in the impact assessment that was given to the committee that goes with this order. One of the options was to do nothing, and the other one was to make this order. However, there are other options that could be taken rather than coming forward with the order, such as to beef up the enforcement process. Why has no option been mentioned about increasing enforcement, especially as we have just heard? There has only been one prosecution and conviction. I think that it would be good if Tom could answer why there have been so few prosecutions, but my understanding is that it is simply extremely difficult to get evidence, because evidence needs to be obtained beyond reasonable doubt to establish the sale of lobster. Unless you witness the sale take place, how can you do that? I used to be a lawyer in criminal courts. The proof needs to be established beyond reasonable doubt. It is extremely difficult to do. That is why it is very simple. I am aware of the one prosecution. It would be helpful if Tom could explain that, because it is amusing, but it is very revelatory that it is absolutely necessary. The other options—I think that Mr Rumbles makes a fair point, and it is absolutely right that we challenge and probe the Government on those things, particularly when the rights of an individual are at stake and a cause is close to Mr Rumbles' heart. I want to win hearts and minds today, not to score political points. It is absolutely correct that options need to be considered, but options were considered. There were two detailed consultations on that. I could go into what the proposals put in the consultations, but the upshot convener of the consultation was an overwhelming response from the industry and others. With SNH supporting the industry in this case—something that does not always happen, of course—this is the practical way. It is also the approach that is taking in other countries. When you think about it it is much easier to detect somebody who is fishing than somebody who is selling a lobster, or more likely a hundred lobster, in a car park somewhere, worth about £3,000, beside a hotel or restaurant. We looked at Mr Rumbles' other options. It is a perfectly correct and legitimate inquiry, but I am satisfied that this one commands a majority of support of the people who are doing it, and the wider public. Nobody wants to prevent a fisherman from taking one for the pot, convener, but the catch limits that are specified in the statutory instrument would allow one lobster, 10 nephrops, five crabs and six scallops would be quite enough in total for a very pleasant meal for most families, I would put, but I do not know of that. Just before we do that, can I just clarify something in my mind, if I may please? The consultation that you referred to is the consultation that received 22 responses, none of which were from hobby fishermen, is that correct? We ran two consultations in 2015 and 2016, and all those with an interest were invited and encouraged to respond. It was a public consultation, so there were two consultations, convener, not one. A proposal to set catch limits for those fishing from unlicensed boats was consulted on in the summer of 2016. You are correct that 22 responses were received. Marine Scotland publicised the consultation by circulating widely amongst a variety of stakeholders, including all who responded to the wider consultation on possible measures in 2015. That included posters in local fisheries offices, harbours, IFMC, IFGS, the fishermen federations and the local fisheries offices were all notified. The consultation was extended by five weeks and it ran for four months, a very long period for consultations in the Scottish Government. There were 54 responses, which was good for a consultation of that type. The Marine Scotland also contacted, among others, the Scottish Sea Angling Conservation Network as the best-placed organisation to reach those who might be engaging in that type of fishing. I was not involved directly in that work. I do not know whether my officials have anything to add to help to answer your question. To directly answer the question on whether there were hobby fishermen responded, we believe that there were some hobby fishermen responded, but they were responding as individuals and they did not state whether there were a hobby fisherman or a member of the public. We cannot be sure at this stage that we have engaged with the hobby fishermen. Tom, do you want to come in and answer the specific question in relation to the person to enforcement that was asked? I will try to explain it as briefly as I can. We have four. We can board a vessel at sea, but if somebody turns around and says to us that they are going to keep them for themselves, there is no offence. We can have 100 lobsters at that point. We do not believe them, but we cannot do anything about them. We get them at the point of landing. Again, if he tells me that he is putting it in his freezer, I have to accept that he is putting it in his freezer. We can get them when he then goes to a car park. Chances are that if we appear, I have just landed them on behalf of somebody else. So, to try and follow the whole chain through is really, really difficult. The one prosecution we got was two gentlemen in a car park in Fife with 147 lobsters. What are you doing with them? I am selling them. What are you doing with them? I am buying them. Oh, we can do something here. I am not trying to make light of this, but that is basically, as things stand at the moment, that is the level of proof that we need. I am going to let Mike come back in. If I could ask you to keep the questions focused, if I may. Tom, in the minister's letter to the committee, he pointed out that if a registration of buyers and sellers scheme has been fully operational since 2005, we have had this fully operational scheme and it requires all buyers and it requires all sellers of first-sale fish to be registered. My question to you, Tom, is how well is that enforced? Well, we carry out audits in every single buyer on a traffic light system. Red is the big massive shellfish or pelagic buyers. They get audited every year. Others are audited every second year and others every three years. We have never found evidence where they have purchased from an unlicensed vessel. That is not a problem, then. That is what you are saying to us? No, it is not a problem. It is just that they do not openly buy from unlicensed vessels. The unlicensed vessels sell under the guise of another vessel or they just do not put it through the books. It maybe goes to Billingsgate Market and is done in a cash sale. We have had some antidote evidence that that happens and it is something that we are actually looking at just now with our English callers. However, it is easier to enforce on the land than it is sea, is it not? Well, it is easier to enforce. It is the only place to enforce. It is at the point of sale with regards to commercial fishermen, but it is very difficult to get that level of proof to carry out a full prosecution. That is very helpful. That will be a point that I will be making later on. Can I ask a series of very short questions that will require just a sentence, maximum of an answer? Questions that I cannot find the answer to, but I am sure that you will have done Cabinet Secretary as part of this consultation. How many hobby fishermen are there in Scotland? I am not sure that it is possible to answer a question because there is no requirement for hobby fishermen to identify themselves in their register. How many football supporters are there in Scotland, convener? It is just a logical sequence because I actually see— It is a limit to—I do not think that the Government wants to spend a lot of money trying to assess information for which there is no particular purpose. We did advertise that through posters and so on to reach out to people, but if anyone can suggest who we should have consulted in addition to who we have mentioned, I would be most grateful. However, we did make every effort, practically, convener, to reach out to all of those with an interest. I would very strongly suspect that all of those that Tom really wants to focus on would be extremely well aware of what we have been doing for some time. I was trying to keep the questions focused. I am assuming that we do not know how many hobby fishermen there are, we do not know how many creals each of them have, and we cannot quantify the catch that they are supposed to be making at all. Is that right, Tom? No, I would not say so. I mean that there are many, many, I would say, hundreds—literally hundreds—of hobby fishermen who go out from small ports right round the Scottish ports and have two, three, four creals that they put out singly and catch a lobster here, a crab there or whatever. There are also others that we know of who are working 100, 150 creals. Tom and Cabinet Secretary, I am sure that you can see that I am trying to quantify the size of the problem, so I understand that.  I could not go into it. I could not go into it. So we do not know the size of the problem. Cabinet Secretary, I am trying to get quick answers. I am trying to indicate that some of these questions are not really ones where we can sensibly provide information. After all, you do not frame the nature of criminal offences by reference to how many criminals there may be. You do so because it is wrong. Okay. One more, just so I understand, how many Scottish of these species are landed legally in Scotland? Do you have an estimate of the total amount of lobsters and Scotland? Report catching limits. Again, that is not something that is capable, I think, of being measured, but maybe Tom from his practical experience would have… I know that we have figures for the commercial figures, which… I am after the commercial figures. Total £83 million, so this is a hugely important livelihood for lots of people who are trying to protect you. Do you want to go over those figures? I am after actual number of species. I am not after financial value. I was 1,035 tonnes of lobster landed in Scotland. 1,035 tonnes of lobster. 12,300 tonnes of nethropse and 3,446 tonnes of scallops. Stuart McMillan, next. Then I have John and then I've got Ryder. Thank you, convener. I want to pursue the issue of health. That is primarily being brought forward, I judge from what is before me, on conservation grounds. That is perfectly reasonable. In the response to the committee, cabinet secretary, you have at the bottom of the third page of your letter, I said that the safety of public and fishermen is also paramount. I just want to ask one or two questions, because some 10-plus years ago, there was quite a significant bit of parliamentary activity related to domoic acid levels in scallops in particular, and the resultant to amnesic shellfish poisoning that human beings can encounter if shellfish carry high levels of domoic acid, which they will do from time to time seasonally. My concern, as much as anything in this one, is whether that will adequately aid or prevent people from suffering ill health from shellfish in particular, but lobsters, crabs and so on and so forth, that bypass the recording system but none the rest reach people's tables, with there being no audit trail of where those fish have come from. Is that as much a part of what the cabinet secretary is interested in, in pursuing this particular issue, protecting the health of people in Scotland? Of course, it is one of the factors that underlie the rationale for this measure, and why we believe very strongly that it is in the public interest that it should be supported today. The reason is, as I think Mr Stevenson has pretty clearly set out, that toxinsari problem in some areas, testing is carried out of shellfish areas in order to ascertain whether or not toxinsari exist. Mr Stevenson has also been around for as long as myself, and so I can remember that we were hugely engaged in the rural committee in the first session of Parliament on this issue, which is a very serious issue then, because there are lots of tests that prove negative with highly risky toxins for public health. The problem here really is the possibility of shellfish being sourced from areas that are affected by toxins, particularly if they are harvested from waters that have not been tested for toxins and classified as safe. Plainly, licenced activity by commercial fishermen has to and generally will observe scrupulously the rules, but we really have no reach control ability to deal with the activities of those who are under the guise of hobby fishermen carrying out commercial activity, and if they are going to harvest from those waters where they shouldn't be, where there is a risk that shellfish consumed would lead to pretty unpleasant illness, that is a factor that led us to bring forward those regulations. I hope that I have described that correctly, I do not know if— On the subject, is the occurrence of toxins quite variable at different points of the calendar in different parts of Scotland? There is not a predictability about it that you could enable you to deal with this in other ways and protect public health? I haven't made a study of toxins, I don't know if Mr Watson has. Do you know, Jim? I think the only thing that's hard is that it is difficult to predict when it will occur and where it will occur, and there has been, as you rightly said, been some serious incidents in the past over a considerable period of time. John, you are next, and I'm afraid that I did get it wrong in the order there, so it's John, Peter, Rhoda and then Richard. Cabinet Secretary, if you talk to McStalk's been under pressure and in your letter, which provided a lot of detail to us, you also talk about the 1,400 static gear vessels. I'm interested in those who legitimately pursue this activity for as a livelihood and the impact on them. You also say that fishermen have expressed increasing concern about the health of fisheries and assessments by Marine Scotland science. To what extent is this a conservation measure as well? Well, it's a conservation measure in the sense that those who are carrying out a activity under the guise of hobby fishermen, but bringing in, as Tom has said, in some cases, 140 lobster has the potential to have a very serious impact on stocks and threaten to jeopardise legitimate conservation measures. It is a measure that is obviously designed in one hand to protect the interests of commercial fishermen, and we've heard that the value of that is £83 million, so it's not an inconsiderable industry to Scotland, and there's lots of people whose livelihoods are dependent on it, but it's also necessary for conservation measures because plainly we can influence the activities of fishermen who are going about this as their business, but it's impossible to influence by the very nature of it those who are fishing hundreds of lobster or crabs or other forms of shellfish illegally. Obviously, they're doing so in order to avoid detection. I don't know if there's anything else that can be added to read the conservation issue. One of what we do discover with regards conservation, we run red patrols all over the Scottish coast particularly during the summer months when hobby fishermen are the highest. We find that hobby fishermen do not care for size limits, and they will keep everything. Yes, if we come across that, we make sure that the stuff are returned to the sea. Unfortunately, the commercial fishermen are not licensed to or trying to avoid us, they take everything, and it does have an effect on conservation. Okay, thank you. Cabinet secretary, there was also a further reference to fishermen, and you talked about the experience elsewhere in the British Isles, particularly in relation to the north-eastern inshore fisheries and conservation area. It was the phrase, this is in part due to the success of the operation in your letter, and I quote, this is in part due to policing by fishermen themselves. If passed, would you see a role for, given the challenges that there are of enforcement, a role for the fishermen, be it formal or informal, in the enforcement of this? Well, I think that as much as their citizens who, if this measure is passed, will be able to draw to the attention of the marine enforcement department, what they believe to be illicit activity, of course they can be the eyes and ears to report to incidents. I should have said that, but I apologise that I didn't get this factual information, that Marine Scotland science assessments indicate that crab and lobster stocks in some areas are being fished close to or above recommended levels, and fishermen have expressed concern about the health of fisheries for scallops, brown and velvet crabs and lobster, so that is some factual information that I omitted to include. I think that fishermen play a part in the enforcement process, but maybe Tom would be better placed than myself, convener, to give some more information on that. Just briefly, in the last 15 months, we have had 94 pieces of information intelligence supplied to us. If that passes, I would be very surprised if that didn't double or quadruple just purely from fishermen out doing their own business and seeing things that they don't think works right, so I think that the fishermen will police it themselves very much. Peter and then Reddick. Good morning, gentlemen. I am interested in another possible way to address this problem. You have got this register of buyers and sellers, which seems to work reasonably well for the guys that are licensed to do that. Mr Robertson said earlier on that you know about guys that regularly go out with 100 creels, but they are not registered. Surely you could say to that guy, you are obviously going out and doing this in a professional way, so you should be registered. You have outlined some of the reasons why they would not want to be registered, but surely you could put pressure on that guy to do that legally. Where we come across guys where we know they are working a lot of creels, we do, we pay them a lot of attention, but we cannot sit on top of them the whole time, so he just keeps his whatever he keeps, he keeps them and keep creels at sea. If we find out where they are, we go and we lift them up and we measure them, and if there is anything undersized, we return it to the sea, but to actually follow it all the way. As soon as we have paid attention to them, you usually find these commercial guys that we are trying to target here. There is maybe four or five. My suggestion would be that a lot of them are aware or still are involved in the oil industry, so they are not there all the time, but when they are on their time off they work. So one day it is maybe one person, three days later it is somebody else because their time ashore has changed and they work the vessel between them and it is very hard as things stand. If we catch somebody with 10 lobsters today, he just turns around and says, or he could turn around and say, yes, that is 10 every day for the last 10 days, I have kept him and I keep creel, but if we target him and catch him two days later and he still gets 10 lobsters, well he cannot now, if these measures come in, he cannot now say, yes, I have kept him for the last 10 days because we know he has already got rid of that 10. It is just very difficult to prove the sale, even with the help of the registered buyer, so it is very difficult to prove their sale and for profit. Just on that point, even with this instrument in place, if someone were landing 10 lobsters they could say, I have caught one a day, I have had it and I have kept them and I keep creel, I am now taking them home to eat. There would be nothing at all to stop them, but it will give us the power that we can then target that individual and we can then get him again in two days later and he has lost that. Will this stop the one-off offence? No, it won't, but it will give us a way of targeting and we know that we have drawn a line in the sand on, say, the Tuesday with where he said he has 10 lobsters and he has taken them home. If we then get him in the Thursday and he has got another 10 lobsters, where did he get them? Why have you got these 10 lobsters? Then we can start to put pressure on them. But you would still have to prove when he caught them, so he could have been saying, I was fishing all summer. I have got a keep creel that has 100 lobsters in it and I am taking them home at 10 a day or whatever. Absolutely, but I would like to think that my officers would question the person and ask them relevant questions. Have you got any more? Where do you keep them? We would manage to get to a position where we could draw a line in the sand. I suppose that my concern about this is not that something needs to be done. I believe that something does need to be done, but the figures, the limits and the instrument, frankly, would not be one for the pot because if you took one lobster home to a family of four, you are going to have a fight in your hands. It is not really going to be… It is not allowing someone to hobby fish because you are not going to catch the scallops, the nethrops, the ground crab, the velvet crab, the lobster all in one go to take home a meal, so to speak. In a way, you are outlawing hobby fishing altogether. I wonder if you have thought about other ways of dealing with this, for instance, marking creels. If someone is putting down a fleet of 100 creels, you know that person is at it and you can take those creels. If someone has a fleet of five creels out, you know that they are hobby fishing. If those creels are marked, you can identify who they are. Surely that is a better way of keeping tabs on this, rather than putting in amounts that really do not make a lot of sense even for someone hobby fishing. Things such as velvet crabs are seldom eaten here. They are normally sent abroad, and that is why they are commercially fished. To have them in is almost nonsensical, but to limit to one lobster if you are looking to catch enough from you. One lobster is not going to feed enough people from you. That is something that needs to be done. Surely there is something more sensible than those numbers. Again, the idea of the limits that we spoke about at length before we introduced the limits and used limits that are in place around the country. I am not nor are my officers ever going to go and try to catch Old Willie that takes three lobsters once a week and him and Jesse having them for their tea. I am not interested. What we are trying to get here is where we can get a line in the sand to target individuals who are genuinely commercially fishing. On that point, Old Willie is not going to want to break the law. If he sees one lobster is down in statutory instrument, it is going to push him out from doing what he would do. If there were three lobsters, that would make perfect sense. The amounts are draconian, they are very low, and they would outlaw pretty much all hobby fishing. I do not think that we want to do that. We want to protect stocks and the fishing industry, because it is difficult for those who are making a living. At the same time, the instrument seems to not get the balance right? Those limits were set based on two years of discussions with stakeholders. The actual limits that have been arrived and proposed here are consistent with what is in place in many other parts of the UK and Ireland. The one lobster has a dozen crabs, and they are consistent with that, as the cabinet secretary said in the opening remarks. We are out of kilter with what is happening elsewhere in Ireland and the rest of the UK. I will leave that there if I may and ask Richard to come in with his question. I think that there are a lot of things that have to be looked at in a common sense.  Your officers need to hide up the back-end of the hill with their binoculars to trail a man-feeze boat, to drive along the road, to know where he is going, to know that he is going to meet Joe Bloggs at that carpark, and they are all going to change some reddies. You would need to trail that and prove that. Possibly it is a bit like the Secret Service photograph it in order to prove that she did not have two officers there and that you do not have a witness. We are really going from the sublime to the ridiculous, correct? To bring that in, and again, I think that your officers have a bit of common sense. If old jimmies collected three lobsters or whatever went over the speed limit, they are not going to do them, because they know that they are not selling them. Absolutly. Would you agree with me that bringing that in would allow your officers to deal with people who basically are ripping off the system and also are depriving other true fishermen of their livelihood? Thank you very much. Thank you for that. Unless there are any more questions, I am going to propose to move straight on to the second item on the agenda. The cabinet secretary will be given a chance to be involved in that debate, which is why I have not asked you to make any closing remarks on that first section. The second item on the agenda is formal consideration of motion S5M-04500, in the name of Mike Rumbles. Mike Rumbles will speak first to move the motion, and then the members of the committee will get a chance to speak and debate it, including the cabinet secretary. However, just for clarity, your officials' cabinet secretary cannot take part in the debate. I would like to ask Mike Rumbles to move the motion and, before we go into the debate on the committee, so Mike. Thank you very much, convener. I think that this is about Parliament and the parliamentary committee doing its work in a non-partisan way, without any attempt to make any political points at all. In fact, I may criticise this, but I am not criticising the minister, actually. I just think personally from what I have seen here. I think that this has come forward through the system, because it is the easiest thing to do. I have been elected first in 1999, and I have now spent 13 years in this Parliament. I was on the equivalent of this committee in the first two parables. We crossed swords many times over that period and agreed on many things, too. I have never been moved to a null, a statutory instrument, that way. I have never done it before. This is the first time. Why is it the first time? When I looked at the final business and regulatory impact assessment that was provided to accompany the order, I was quite shocked by it. Why? Even before it arrived, constituents had raised this issue with me. Hobby fishermen have raised this issue with me. They are concerned that they are being dragged into becoming—their activities are now going to become illegal. The minister said right at the beginning of the previous session that that was not his intention. What I am concerned about is the unintended consequence of this order. If I go back to the purpose and intended effect that you have provided, it starts by saying that there is anecdotal evidence. We are changing the law here. We are changing the law that will criminalise a certain activity. You cannot really start basing a law on anecdotal evidence. In the same paragraph, it says that it is believed that there are particular hotspots around the country. Again, it is supposition. Further down, it says that the biggest impact of the measure will be on illegal, unlicensed commercial fishing activity. I personally do not agree with that. I think that the biggest impact will be on hobby fishermen. The whole point of this, I have the consultation. The consultation has brought the attention of licensed commercial fishermen—of course, it would be—and their representatives, and there was broad support for the restrictions. Of course, it would be because you are asking the commercial fishermen. You have brought forward just two options in the paper. Option one was to do nothing—which, obviously, we need to do something—and option two is just to move this order. Again, in the option paper, you repeat that there is anecdotal evidence—some licensed fishermen. I believe that the whole issue here is about whether we are actually probably enforcing the law as it stands. I do not think that the solution to the problem—there is a problem, anecdotally, we know that there is a problem—is the solution to solving a problem because there is a lack of enforcement of the law as it stands by creating another law that will not be enforced because the current law is not. Criminalising people are hobby fishermen in bringing them into that situation. I thought that Rhoda Grant made a very important point in her question earlier on when she said that, okay, Tom Robertson and his team will not go after Mr and Mrs McSwackle go out and bring a couple of lobsters in, but Mr and Mrs McSwackle do not want to break the law. Are we bringing the law into disrepute? Actually, it is not going to really apply to you. That is the job that we have around this table. We have to look at what the Government is bringing forward. Does this law match the problem? Are there any unintended consequences? I just want to go on and say that I have obviously had meetings with commercial fishermen about this. I have had meetings with others as well, some around this table. What the commercial fishermen have said to me, actually, there is another way. There is another way, and it is a simple other way. What was referred to earlier on in the questions, the other way that we could proceed on this is simply by definition. What is a commercial fisherman? What is a hobby fisherman? We have already heard in evidence that a hobby fisherman is someone—anyone who takes five creels out is obviously not going to sell them on a commercial basis. If you are taking five creels out, this has once been put to me by the commercial fisherman, it is such a simple thing to do. Just define a hobby fisherman as being someone who takes out five or six creels or less. Then it is easy for Tom Robertson and his team to tackle this issue. I come back to the fundamental point. There has been one prosecution over the law as it stands. The solution, will this order make a difference? I do not believe for one moment that it will make a hooter difference out there to tackling the problem. It will not make any difference. All it will do is actually drag the hobby fisherman into an illegal activity, and that is the problem I have. If that was not the case, I would be very happy with this order, and we would get it through. I just think that this is the law of unintended consequences in a big way. The commercial fisherman told me that a lot of commercial fishermen start out as hobby fishermen and become commercial fishermen. The commercial fishermen have told the Government that they do not want hobby fishermen brought into this. The minister started off as evidence to the committee that that is not his intention. However, if we pass that, that is exactly what is going to happen. Thank you. There are members queuing up to enter into this debate. Cabinet Secretary, if you want to enter in, if you can try to catch my eye, I will try to bring you in at the appropriate moment to add to it. I am sorry, but it is just an appointed process. It is a long time since I have been in one of those scenarios, but am I not due to come in only at the end of only after listening to all members? I have not checked the standing orders, but is that not the process? It is right that you get to say something at the end, but if you think that there is something that would add to the debate, according to the clerks, I am entitled to ask you to come in. Surely members can intervene just so that they would be normal to debate. In that case, could I intervene just on one point of information? Really, it has been put to me by Mr Robertson that it is impossible to have a count of creals once in the water. If that is the case and one can see the logic of that, then the alternative mode of creating a criminal offence, which Mr Rumbos has suggested, would not be practicable. Hold on. I would like to go round with some of the other people. Stewart, you are being caught by my eye first. Thank you very much, convener. Let me just deal with a few points. The suggestion that the hobby fishermen might be eliminated from their hobby by this, I think that we only need to look at what is happening in Northern Ireland and what is happening in the north of England. There is still hobby fishermen operating under, in the case of the north of England. I think that more rigorous enforcement than is proposed here, and yet hobby fishermen remain. Of course, the other issue is that five creals is the cut-off point. You can debate anything you like.  A quick estimate, and this is to put a cap on it, of course, even with five creals, you could generate a five-figure income each year if you filled every creal every day. I am not saying that that is a likely scenario, but it is perfectly possible and proper in general in terms of making money out of your hobbies. I used to make money out of my hobby of dingy selling. I used to make a profit every year from the prize money that I used to win, so it is perfectly proper. However, I have central to my concerns about any suggestion that we should reject that order, and it is simply the question of health. I am not prepared to reject this and take the risk that people are affected by what is a very, very serious condition. The seriousness is in the name of the condition, amnesic shellfish poison. It can affect if there are excess levels of damoic acid—over 20mg per something—and I cannot remember what the per-something is—that you can seriously damage the intellectual capabilities of people who have eaten the shellfish. It is particularly a risk in scallops, because scallops are mobile shellfish and are much more difficult to test. You cannot test by sample in the way that you can test in certain other tethered types of shellfish. The same is broadly true across the whole area that we are discussing. I am not prepared to have on my conscience serious and possibly permanent ill health that is created from time to time. It is not going to affect hundreds of thousands of people. That is one of the reasons why this is an important issue. Picking up one or two other points that have so far arisen in the debate, perhaps turning to the registration of buyer and seller scheme, it is worth perhaps reminding ourselves of what the world looked like before the introduction of that scheme by the Labour and Liberal Administration. It was one of the very good things that they actually did. We actually had a situation where it appeared from the declared landings at the ports of Scotland, particularly in relation to nephrops, that the declared landings were less than one quarter of what was being processed in the factories when you went in and audited them, because there was no control over the process of catching and processing. I think that that measure has almost single-handedly been one that is created in industry, which is now perfectly open to scrutiny and behaves in a responsible manner and has eliminated that problem. That measure is of considerably more limited scope and effect, but it is a very clear parallel with what that is. Without meaning to steal your thunder, because you are developing an argument, nearly everyone around the table so far has indicated that they want to speak. I would ask if it is possible that you could keep it as concise as possible. I am trying to keep it under three minutes. I am noting that you are close to that limit. Yes, I am also aware of that. The other point that was addressed is anecdote. Fair enough, we can describe Tom Robertson's staff dealing with two men in a car park in Fife as an anecdote, but it also resulted in the prosecution. The bottom line is that it is not all anecdote, but of course it is. I know perfectly well that I worked as a water biller for the Taysam and Fisheries Board in 1968. I made one arrest. It will amuse you for sniggering, which is an offence under the 1956 Taysam and Fisheries Act, and you can go and look up what sniggering actually means. The bottom line is health. Even if nothing else stands scrutiny, I am not prepared to vote that down purely on the grounds of health, convener. Is John Neumann next? I am still holding on to sniggering for a minute. Don't snigger. Thank you, convener. I think that, in Mike's entirely right, this has been a very helpful process. I think that the letter was very informative. I think that the exchanges have been very informative. I take a different tack from Mike. I think that one prosecution is the very reason why we have to proceed with this, and I will not reiterate the points that Stewart has made about health, which is important. I think that these are about a balance. I think that we have heard evidence that would support this. I think that notwithstanding where this has to be approved, there will still be challenges of enforcement, and that is due to the extent of the coastline that we have. What drives me to align support is conservation not just of stocks, but, as a consequence of stocks, the livelihoods of people. When the Creel Fisherman's Association is supportive of this proposal than I am, I have certainly heard sufficient from Mr Robertson to know that how many staff will have powers of discretion, which they will exercise. That is the most important thing, so I will leave it at that. Thank you for that. Jamie, I think that you are next. Thank you, convener. I guess that I just wanted to put some balance to this. In principle, I have absolutely no problem with the concept of trying to regulate what is very clear to the officials, albeit that it has not necessarily produced the prosecution numbers, but there is very obviously bad practice occurring all across the coast. If particularly affects my region in the west of Scotland, there are people out in reasonable sized boats, catching fairly large quantities of species, and there is a black market in existence. We would be failing at our duty to pretend otherwise. I think that it is right that we do something to address that. It is also right, however, as Rhoda, and I think that Mike, points out, to protect the hobbyists. There are people who do catch and distribute locally amongst friends, family, possibly at no charge, possibly for a small charge, but I do not think that those people are the problem that we are trying to tackle. I think that it is the people who are acting as de facto commercial fishermen but who are actually evading the regulatory environment that other proper commercial fishermen have to adhere to, and it is right that we try to tackle that. I think that it is very welcome to hear that the enforceability of it has some discretion. The only problem that I have with this is that, and I think that it comes back to the numbers that Rhoda points out, is that, on paper, they are breaking the law if they are caught of two lobsters on paper. In practice, the enforcement agency will take a view on the day whether they will be able to read the situation, I guess. That is what they are used to doing. Often they know who the stakeholders are. I get that, and I have full confidence in your ability to do that, and your team's ability to do that, Mr Robertson. The problem is that the law is black and white. On paper, they are breaking the law. I do not want to put hobbyists in a position where they have broken the law by catching two or three lobsters. That is what we would be doing through this, but I fully want to support you and, indeed, the cabinet secretary in what he is trying to achieve by putting a stop to this black market industry. That is where I am struggling with this. I do not know if there is a better way we could do it. I want to support your measures, but I do not want to, on paper, sign a piece of legislation off, which makes something illegal to have two or three lobsters in your catch. That is my only concern with that. If someone can address that, I would be very happy to support what you are trying to achieve. Richard, I think that you want to come. I take the point that Jamie Greene is saying, but at the end of the day, we have laws. There are some laws that we do not like and some laws that we have to adhere to, but we need a law. At this moment in time, it looks as though you could drive a coach and horses through and people could go out and make loads of money and the officers cannot do anything about it. You made an interesting comment—you cannot respond, Mr Robertson, but you made an interesting comment earlier when your officer basically had to nod these people away because they gave you a plausible excuse. To enforce the law, you need proof. I have only been told that the transaction, you need to see the transaction, but I have seen out one of these films, trying to trail people and photograph them and ensure that you have the necessary proof, because a lawyer can stand up and quote them and destroy that proof. You have only had one prosecution because you had the proof, because the person stupidly confirmed that they were selling it and they were buying it. I do not have a problem with that. As far as I am concerned, there will be common sense, so officers will say, if you have got three, you should really take one and make sure that tomorrow you only take one or whatever, rather than the three. I do not see a problem. It is much to do with nothing, and some of the questions that have been asked today are stretching the pale. The next one is from Rhaidda. Jamie has covered an awful lot of the points that I wanted to cover, and just for the sake of time, I am not going to repeat them. My point is that the law abiding hobby fishermen will be stopped in their tracks by this instrument because they will not seek to break the law. If the law states one lobster, that is what they will abide by and they will not do it. Just to pick up on Stuart Stevenson's question about health, this instrument is not stopping anyone fishing for scallop at any point. When scallop fisheries are closed, that is advertised locally. Hopefully, the hobby fishermen will pick that up because this will not save them from picking up scallops with shellfish poisoning in them and toxins in them, and they would be poisoned. It might be on a smaller scale, but that would not make any difference. I do not think that argument holds much water. However, I suggest that, if the cabinet secretary is pursuing this instrument today, and it looks at the numbers that it will pass, I urge that he would come back with some more realistic figures so that you are not criminalising hobby fishermen who will abide by the law. While I support what the instrument is trying to do, I think that the way that it is doing it is a very blunt instrument and will stop people pursuing a hobby. I would not want that to happen. Maybe he would come back with revised figures if the instrument does pass, or maybe he would withdraw the instrument and come back with revised figures that would make this workable for everybody. I have a problem with that as well. I am not sure how big the problem is out there. I would love a better idea how big the actual problem is, but I understand that, when it is below the radar, it is very difficult to quantify how big the problem is. I accept that there is an issue. I just wonder how big it is. If there are no answers to that, then there are no answers to that. The other thing that I would like to say—I agree with a lot what Jamie Sayed and Rodell have also backed up—is that it is very difficult for the officers to use discretion. If the law says that it is one lobster, then that is the law. I just wonder how many of the officers will use their discretion, or whether they should use their discretion. I think that that is the point. That is about enforceability. I think that there has to be a number—that is a point that I am not sure of. Is it one, two, three? We could argue all day about the number and what constitutes commercial versus hobby, but I do not think that that is really the way to do it. How can you legislate for something that is then a discretionary decision made at the time? Is there another way of wording this that it should be at the discretion of the enforcement officer or reasonable numbers? What is a reasonable catch? What is not a reasonable catch? By saying that it is one, two or three, you have immediately created a line, you are on the right side of the line or the wrong side of the line. That is what I am unhappy with, but that is not saying that I do not want to address the problem. That is exactly where I am as well. How can your officers use their discretion in a sensible manner if the law says that it is one and that it comes on a share with three? In theory, he should be prosecuted because he is, in theory, broken the law. That is my problem as well. It is a numbers game that is using the officer's discretion. It is the things that I find difficult to be able to support. I have two really quick questions. If that passes today, how are you going to inform hobby fishermen of the new regulations and the new limits? It is also said in your letter, cabinet secretary, that it will be kept under review. What does review look like? Cabinet secretary, would you like to answer that in the end in your summing up? Is there any other member of the committee who would like to contribute to this debate? I would like to make contribution, but I am very happy to give way to anyone else who wants to start. If I can take my convener's hat off now and speak as a member of the committee, I would draw the committee's attention to the fact that I have over 30 years' experience of wild fisheries management and that experience is detailed in my register of interests. That wild fisheries management is all about preserving the future and making sure that stocks are suitable for future management, suitable for suitable exploitation. That experience has taught me several things, but I would like to go to some of the points that were mentioned and have been brought up during this debate. I do not believe that engaging with 22 people actually covers the wide range of feelings that are out there. What I have heard this morning has concerned me. We do not know how many hobby fishermen there are in Scotland. In fact, I checked up with Spice and I asked a question to Spice and I was told that it was unquantifiable. I went just at the moment, but I will, just as I develop my argument, if I may. We do not know how many hobby fishermen there are in Scotland. We do not know how many fish are in the form of lobsters, scallops and shellfish or even crabs at these fishermen catch. We cannot quantify the problem. We know that there is a problem, and I support the cabinet secretary in trying to solve it. However, I would also point out that the evidence that we heard from Mr Robertson this morning about enforcement, my experience of enforcement, is invariably that we know who the bad apples are in the creel, if you will accept that explanation. Therefore, to concentrate on those people, those people who are setting 150 creels, will probably give you a fairly good indication that they are doing it. I understand that you cannot count the creels when they are in the water, but you can count the creels when they are setting them. Everyone knows exactly who is doing what in my opinion on fisheries management. That information is brought up over a period of time. For example, in salmon fisheries management, we knew that there was a problem at some stage coming from a certain part of the country. Those people who were watched and, as they moved into fisheries areas, their movements were followed so that we could identify where they were doing things wrong. Richard, if you want to come in now, maybe the moment before I go on to that. I will remember not to agree that we have had two consultations months and months. At the end of the day, it is not for the Government to force people to reply, it is for people to reply to a consultation, to turn around and say how many hobby fishermen and then go on about fish. How many fish are in the sea? How many fish are in the world? Nobody knows. I think that some of the questions that have been asked of us are really getting a bit stretched. Richard, I thank you for your comment. I actually do not believe that that is right, which is why I have asked the questions. I would go on to say that in wild fisheries management, especially for salmon, there was an order placed before the Parliament that banned the sale of rod caught salmon. That was a way of dealing with the problem of people who were going out there and exploiting wild salmon catches and selling them for gain. That seemed to work. My problem is that the proposals put forward by the Cabinet Secretary in this thing are not enforceable. I am afraid that I agree with Jamie and with Peter. It is not up to Mr Robertson and his crew to interpret their law. Their job is to actually enforce the law. Therefore, you cannot ask them to say, well, because they know somebody who is just catching three or four lobsters for the family, that that is acceptable. I would also make the point that I have not yet understood how you are going to counter the people with keep creels who keep the lobsters over the weekend or maybe for a couple of weeks so that they can have a sensible landing for their family and friends when they have that party where they need more than one lobster. It comes down to the fact of whether you believe that you are a one lobster person or a two lobster person when it comes to sitting down at the table. I will declare that I am a no lobster person because I am allergic to shellfish. The final thing is that I believe that there is another way of doing this. I believe that the way that it should be done is good for the conservation and will achieve the aims that the cabinet secretary is trying to do, which is to protect the fisheries.  That is to make it an absolute law that all lobsters that are caught are tagged and tagged by the boat who has the actual licence to land those lobsters or any of the other fish. There is an identifiable way of making sure that those lobsters, which are the particular item that we have been talking about this morning, can be identified. That way, there could not be illegal landings because the lobsters will be identified and Mr Robertson could go out with his crew and say that that lobster came from that boat and therefore it was identifiable. I believe that it would be good for the lobster industry because it would say that there was an identifiable catch from an identifiable boat in an identifiable area. I am afraid that I do not support the proposal. I do not believe that it will achieve the aims that the cabinet secretary has set out. That is my argument, and I hope that I have kept it roughly to three minutes. Before I ask Mr Rumbles to sum up, I would ask if the cabinet secretary would like to make some comments on what he has heard during this debate. Thank you very much. First of all, I want to emphasise that it is absolutely correct that we have parliamentary scrutiny of this sort. In fact, I welcome it. As Mr Rumbles knows, it is quite sincere. He has allowed us to have an interesting discussion and debate, and that is a good thing. Second of all, I am very grateful for my officials. We have seen an illustration of the thoroughness and professionalism of the officials here, which has been exemplary. Turning to the points raised, first of all, in direct response to Gail Ross's questions, because she specifically asked me to answer them, it is right that we take reasonable steps to notify all interested parties if the measure becomes law, that it is the law. We will do that by press release, by advertising that in local fisheries offices, and we will do it in all practical means. Ignorantia lacks anemic excuse at that, so it is up to the individual to know what the law is. It is not really up to the state to have a sort of daily promulgation or news bulletin about the hundreds of criminal offences there are, but I suspect that it is fairly obvious to those who we really are aiming this legislation at, that this law, if it is passed today, convener will be in place. I suspect that those that we wish to target will be very well aware of it. I think that this has been a very good debate, and I just want to address some of the issues. First of all, on the public health grounds, Mr Stevenson expressed extremely well that on public health grounds alone, those measures should be passed. I have, with the help of my officials, convinced evidence that pressures that there is a serious problem regarding toxins. Mr Stevenson has gone into that. Obviously, we have control over the activities of licensed fishermen and fishing vessels. We have no control whatsoever by definition of those who are engaged in criminal activity. Therefore, the risk of shellfish poisoning is very, very serious. Frankly, the risk of imperiling the whole shellfish industry in Scotland through a serious incident of public health scare is very, very serious indeed. I can tell you from my shellfish summit that I convened last year that the retailers involved take this extremely seriously. In fact, public health is probably the most important issue that we must be shown to tackle to get our shellfish onto the shelves of major retailers. I am in a privileged position of having heard buyers—I will not name them, but I am thinking of two or three who attended my shellfish summit to say that public health is absolutely imperative. If we do not pass this measure today, if anyone votes against it, I would really question whether they are doing the right thing for that reason alone. I think that Mr Finnie set out the case succinctly and well. I gave some indication, convener, that there are pressures to some stocks in some areas and that fishermen report their concerns. Plainly, all of us realise that for fishing to be sustainable, there must be appropriate management. Partly, it is not the sole tool in the box because there are many conveners that the committee will know, but it will become an important tool to allow us effectively to tackle a problem that I think does exist. In response to Mr Chapman's point about how we can measure the extent of the illegal activity that is going on, I have to say that it is very difficult for any Government to measure criminal activity because, by definition, criminals want to avoid detection, and therefore it is not an easy question to ask, and I assure members that they will accept that. However, Mr Robertson has informed me that his officers can say that, during summer months in the north-east alone, 50 to 60 vessels can be observed whilst his officers are on patrol. Of course, the vast majority of those will be hobby fishermen, but only three or four of those vessels, if they were conducting criminal activity, could make a substantial difference. For this reason, the daily catch limit is one lobster, and that has been raised. I think that I can understand the arguments that have been put by Mr Green, Mr Chapman and Mr Rumbles and yourself, convener, but if you look at it from a commercial point of view and I will come on to this in more detail in a moment, what kind of numbers are we talking about? Well, if somebody goes out and fishes just one lobster a day, that is five lobsters a week, each lobster around about, I am informed, £20 per kilo, that is £10,000 a year, just for one lobster per day. We are talking about a lot of money here and a lot of potential impact on the legitimate activity of those who earned our livelihood from this. I want to come on to that because this measure today is one that those who earned our livelihood, convener, have been calling for for years. The fishermen want us to do this, and I hope that members will very much bear that in mind. Let me give some evidence of this. Alasdair Sinclair of the Scottish Creel Fishermen's Federation, representing over 500 Creel vessels, says, we have no doubt that implementation will go some way to eradicating the problem of unlicensed fishermen who fish for profit. For many years, licensed fishermen were the full-apart time of made representations to Marine Scotland and, respect of those who would abuse the notion of taking one for the pot from our coastal waters. The current free-for-all that exists has created a black market in respect of the sale of fresh seafood. He finishes by saying, convener, that we urge that you implement the proposed restrictions due to come into force on 17 April 2017. Those views are echoed by Alasdair McNeill, the chair of the west coast regional inshore fisheries group. He refers to great concern among inshore fishermen that considerable numbers of people flaunt the rules by fishing under the banner of hobby fishermen yet are selling catches either directly or indirectly into the market. Bertie Armstrong of SSF, representing 500 plus member vessels, says, the limits as proposed seem reasonable, and given that they are aligned to existing practices in Northern Ireland, that would seem fair and sensible. Given that there are jurisdictions in Northern Ireland and in the north of England that have similar or even more restrictive levels of catches, is there any evidence of which you are aware that the number of hobby fishermen has been adversely affected by those regimes in Northern Ireland north of England? I could not give authoritative evidence about that, but the view that we have heard very clearly is that, for the reasons that we have heard from Mr Robertson, those measures introducing very clear, clearly defined limits will substantially assist in enforcing enforcement activity against illegal fisheries that are carrying on at the moment. I thought that Mr Robertson's exposition of that was crystal clear. Of course, criminal law needs to be clear. If you say that something is a crime, it must be very clearly defined. That will allow enforcement officers for the first time to tackle a problem that all of our fishermen through their representative bodies say is essential. If those members vote against it, they are voting against, in my opinion, the views of fishermen who, frankly, are better placed to know about these matters than myself or anybody else. That said, however, I think that Mr Greene and others made a point about, and Ms Grant made a point about, are the restrictions too low? I wanted to dress that specifically, if I may. I do not know whether that might help Mr Greene and he is happy to come in after I have dealt with this part of the argument. The limits were based on discussions with stakeholders and responses to the consultation. Only three of the 22 responses were opposed to any restrictions being introduced. The consultation response, yes, there were 22 to the second one. There were 54 responses to the first one in 2015. That is larger than many fisheries consultations. Perhaps the main point is that of the 22 responding, many were bodies such as the Creel Federation and the Fishermen's Federation, that represent hundreds and hundreds of members. Each individual consultee, although there were some individuals, included organisations that are representing, effectively, thousands of people around the country who earn their livelihood here. To say that there are 22 responses, I think, does not take account of the whole picture. Moreover, when the consultations were issued, they were issued to a large number of others who, for various reasons, may not have responded by choice. Any process of consultation and government exercises is, by definition, going to be limited in scope, but I am convinced that we have reached those who we need to reach. Moreover, the limits are comparable. I absolutely understand the points that Mr Green and Ms Grant make in particular are genuinely made, so I am not impugning that at whatsoever. However, the limits are comparable with catch limits in place already in Ireland and in the UK. I have not been aware of any upsurge of protests from hobby fishermen there about those limits and their operation. We are doing what has already been done elsewhere. The sale value of a lobster, six crabs, ten, longosteen and six scallops would amount to £40 to £50. We are talking about high-value fisheries products here. Carried out on a weekly basis, we are talking about a lot of money. Finally, those limits only apply to fishing from an unlicensed vessel for the named species and they do not apply to fishing from the shore or to species such as mackerel or cod. The species that we are dealing with are those of under great pressure and of greatest value to ensure commercial fishermen. I do not know if Mr Green wanted to come in or whether I am trying to answer some of the points that he made. I do appreciate that. I think that there is very little in your argument to disagree with. I am not going to speak on behalf of other members. The health benefits, the benefits of the fishing communities, the commercial fishermen themselves, the environmental benefits, etc. I do not have a problem with any of that. It is very simply the number one being a legal catch, two being illegal. Therefore, one means that you are a hobby fisherman, two means that you must be acting by presumption commercially and illegally. That is the only problem that I have. It is the only reason that I would be mindful not to support it, not for any other reason, and certainly not that I would have any problem with any of the health benefits or to act and support the fishing industries, which I think that we all want to do around this table. I just wanted to make that very clear for the record. That was the only reason that I have been struggling with this, to be quite honest with you, cabinet secretary. Ms Grant might have expressed similar views on that. I disagree with that very strongly. Those measures are in force elsewhere. They do not appear to impair hobby fishing. In any event, the approach that is taken by the enforcement division is a practical one. I think that Mr Robertson has very clearly indicated that his target here is those who are plainly operating on a commercial basis. That would govern his approach, which I understand will be governed by discretion. That is the point that Mr Finnie made in particular. It is the experience in the police that he will be aware of. There is an element of discretion about how those involved in enforcement of the law go about their business and that would be governed by common sense and fairness. I think that anyone listening to Mr Robertson would agree that that is how matters will be dealt with. I hope that members will be satisfied that that answers a legitimate point, which I think that members have answered. It is just a discretion point. You did say, cabinet secretary, that the criminal law is an exact science, but then you go on to say that all the officers can use a discretion. The two things do not hang together. It is either an exact thing or you can use discretion. I am not sure that we can square that circle. Perhaps because I spent most of my life as a practicing solicitor, I can do precisely that for a very simple reason that I did not say laws in exact science. What I said was that the framing of any criminal offence requires to be carried out in such a way that the activity that is criminalised is precisely defined. That is what I said. That is entirely different from the separate question about the approach that is taken in the application of enforcement practice in relation to those laws. Point of order, Richard. Two members have asked for an intervention. I would like to ask the cabinet secretary on a point that he has just made. Yes. Richard, absolutely you are going to. On a point of order, absolutely you are going to. What I am trying to say to everyone, if I may, is that there is no time limit officially for this, but there are 90 minutes for the debate and we are not there yet. All I am just asking is if people can keep the questions and answers as brief as possible. I appreciate, Richard, that you now want to ask questions. Please understand that I will bring you in. I just want to draw members' attention to time. I do not think that I have lost the thread. Cabinet Secretary, I am a previous lawyer. Is it correct that officers, police officers, may stop somebody and give them a caution but not charge them? In that case, Mr Robertson's team could stop someone and talk to them and say, well, Jimmy, you have got three but really you should only be taking one.  That is a reasonable summary of the sort of approach that our enforcement officers take. I think that this is a very important point and I do with respect, I genuinely feel that this goes to the heart of the objections that some of you have, and I understand why you have expressed it perfectly clearly and perfectly legitimately. You have heard straight from the head of enforcement that he will proceed with discretion with common sense. That is correct, and a degree of latitude and discretion about those things is necessary, precisely so that our law enforcers, whether they be enforcement officers in Marine Scotland or whether they be in the police or other areas of enforcing the criminal law, an element of common sense and discretion of course is necessary. It is perfectly obvious that the real activities here are seriously commercial activities, entirely different from hobby fishing. Therefore, we are, as law makers, obliged to place our trust in the law enforcers and recognise that, although there may be theoretical objections, they are perfectly well stated that, in practice, we need to give people like Mr Robertson and his colleagues a bit of discretion about how they go about their business. It is a point that I made before, but I just want to emphasise it. It is not about discretion on the part of Mr Robertson and other officers. It is about a person deciding to not break the law, and most people are law abiding. Their hobby activity will be stopped by this instrument because they will seek not to break the law in the first place. It is not a matter of asking officers to have discretion. People will actually desist from hobby fishing because they are in danger of breaking the law. I would respectfully disagree with that. I do not really see that as a scenario that I would recognise as realistic, although I absolutely respect the member's right to subscribe to that view or any other view that she wishes. Those are daily catch limits. Those are not annual or weekly or monthly. Those are daily catch limits. Hobby fishermen are quite entitled to pursue their hobby in several days, as no doubt they will throughout the course of the year, and catch what is a fairly handsome catch of a variety of different shellfish, which I think for most families would provide the basis of a particularly pleasant meal. Taking your admonition to be relatively brief, if I could just draw my remarks to a close, convene by saying this, I think that it would be a big shame if this Parliament rejected that order. I think that there will be quite a lot of understandable concern, possibly anger, among those whose legitimate activities we need to protect. The idea that we should tag lobster seems to me to be involved in an entirely new bureaucracy. It would be completely unnecessary. Criminals could easily get hold of tags and do tagging themselves. Of course, it is widely open to abuse. It would have to be a new police system of tagging lobster. Goodness knows how much it would cost. I am surprised that it was proposed, but everyone is entitled to their views. My suggestion was based on a suggestion that was muted and supported by the Scottish Government of tagging wild salmon. A Floyd tag to go in a wild salmon costs less than 50p. Putting a number on it is even less than that. To put it into a lobster and put it on is no different than putting a rubber band round their claws. I think that that comment was slightly disingenuous. My proposal was not to increase bureaucracy, so I wondered if you would care to give me an answer on why you think it would increase bureaucracy and why it would not be a cheap way of ensuring that you knew where the lobster came from. I was just expressing my view and, as I said, I respect other people's views, and I was just offering mine. However, I am not here to talk about wild salmon issues. I appreciate that you are well aware of those issues because of your interests in those matters, convener, but I am not here to talk about those. However, I think that it is reasonable for me to argue that, if, as has been suggested by yourself, an entirely new system of tagging every lobster that is caught in the land is introduced, that would involve devising tags, getting somebody to manufacture them, purchasing them, finding a method of administering this, which would ensure that criminals do not get hold of them. How one does that, I do not know, because the thing about criminals is that they are quite deft and agile at getting around the law. Therefore, I am just offering my comments, whether they are disingenuous or not, I do not really care, but I am certainly not going to be bringing in a new scheme, which I think would be incredibly bureaucratic, impossible to enforce and be of no benefit whatsoever. Getting back to the final remarks, rarely have I had the opportunity to speak to a regulation, which has so many good reasons to support it. On public health, on conservation, on economy, on protecting people's livelihoods, on each of those grounds individually alone, it would be, in my view, sensible to support those measures. However, taken as a whole, convener, and in conclusion, I think that they make those regulations absolutely compelling. I therefore have great pleasure in urging members to support the regulation and reject the motion to annul, which Mr Rumbles has quite reasonably brought forward. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I am going to invite Mike to respond to the debate, but before I do so, could I ask you to either press or withdraw your motion as part of that debate? I was gently reminded by the clock that, in fact, I had not moved the motion earlier on. I now move the motion and I confirm that I wish to press it. Would you like to briefly close the debate? I would like to address the points that members particularly have made in some of the ministers. The minister said originally that, on advice that I could see him taking, that five creels would be difficult to see. Of course they would, but that is not what we are proposing. The alternative proposition is that, of definition, five creels can be easily seen on boats leaving the harbour. That is really what I wanted to say there. Stuart Stevenson contributed in a point about health. That is not about health. It was answered by Rhoda Grant. I need to say no more there. John Finnie said that there was one prosecution only. Of course, because that is because they coughed up, they did not obviously realise that that was the humour that came across at that point. That they perhaps have not been realised of breaking the law. I will, if I have time, but there are a number of points that I want to go through. Can I come back, John, if I can get through all of this? There are a number of points that members have raised that I want to address. Enforcement is clearly not effective. We have had that one prosecution because it came across two guys selling this on it. Enforcement is not effective. No evidence has been heard of prosecution's charges or anything. We have not got an effective enforcement of the current law. Jamie Greene identified that the black market exists. Of course, it does not absolutely agree with him. He made the point that it is how we should tackle it. That is the whole point of this debate about this order. He is absolutely right. Richard Lyle said that if I have time, convener, of course, what can I come back? I am trying to be as helpful as I can. Richard made the point that we need a law. In fact, we do need a law, but we need the most effective laws. He used the phrase that there was much to do about nothing, but I can assure you that a lot of hobby fishermen disagree with that point. Rhoda Grant made a very telling point, which minister did not agree to, but I think is common sense. The problem with common sense is not often so common. We have law-abiding people. We have commented on people who are breaking the law, but we have many, many law-abiding people. If the law says that you can only catch one lobster, that is what the law says. That is what this order says. It will criminalise that activity, and many law-abiding people will stop doing that. That is not what we want. Peter Chapman argued that it was difficult for officers to use their discretion, and he is absolutely right. The law is the law. That is the problem. I will take interventions at the end, if I may. Edward Mountain, our convener, is speaking in a personal capacity. He has 30 years' experience of wild fisheries management. I must know very little compared to what Edward knows on this subject. He made the point that he did not believe in engaging with 22 respondents is good enough. Of course, only 10 of those supported the order in its fall. We cannot quantify the problem, Edward said. We need to concentrate on those people who are breaking the law. I could not agree more. We are not enforcing the current law. There is another way. Edward has spent some time talking about his view of tagging, which is an option. I do not know anything about that, but I think that that is an option that could be explored. The minister started in his contribution at the end by saying that it was right for this parliamentary committee to do this. I am pleased that we have done it. I am pleased that I have put the order to a null down. We are doing what we are supposed to be doing, looking at orders that come through and saying that they fit for purpose. Is this really the most effective way of changing the law? That is what we are doing. This is changing the law, and it is only the 11 of us sitting on this committee that stands in the way of a bad order coming through. Gail Ross made the question about how do fishermen know about the consultation. I have talked to fishermen and they did not know the consultation. Hobby fishermen by their own existence are not part of organisations necessarily. That is why only 22 people responded and only 10 supported it. The minister then said that no one should vote against this order on health grounds alone. I am afraid that I do not accept that. By voting against this order—we are not voting against order, by the way—I want to make this absolutely clear. The motion to a null is not voting against this order, so there is a lot of misunderstanding of what we are doing today. He said that it is absolutely true. What happens is that if we reject the order today, that is what we are doing, and what we are doing is referring it to our colleagues across the chamber so that we can have a proper look at this in more detail. That is what we are doing. There is a problem with that terminology. We do not a null the order with my motion to a null. We do not do that. What we do is ask that we say that this stops now in this committee, and the minister then refers it to the bureau and the bureau puts it on the programme for a debate in Parliament where we can all examine these issues in detail and get the benefit of wider input across the country to this rather than just deal with it in committee. That is a really important point to make. The commercial inshore fisherman want this order, we are told. I do not question that, of course they do. If I were a commercial fisherman, I would want it too, but that is not our job. The minister said that criminal law needs to be clear, and I could not agree more with him. It is absolutely true, but the crimes under the current criminal law have not been tested in the courts. They have not been. Then again, the minister said, and I have to say that I thought that this was, if I can be slightly contentious here, interesting coming from the minister when he said, well, the rest of the UK does this. England, Wales, Northern Ireland, we all do this. We have a super system in the Scottish Parliament, as we are doing now, of scrutiny. I think that this is the best system of scrutiny that any of our parliaments have. We are doing this here in Scotland. We are holding the minister's account. We are doing our duty to do the right thing. We are not a rubber stamp, which so often happens. If anybody wants to intervene, I am happy to take advantage of that. I was conscious of stop people. From past experience, I will give the example of how discretion can be exercised in its purpose. It is against the law to speed above certain levels in certain instances. Many people would commend the approach that Police Scotland takes of stopping a driver who is just exceeding the limit and providing a warning and giving some educational advice as to why it is important to stick to the limits. That is the sort of issue that could apply here. Similarly, clearly the police service will target areas where there is no conduct if that area takes place or where there is constant conduct of that area. That is how discretion is applied. That is how I envisage it. It is an interesting point, but I think that it is a false analogy. The point that I am making to your intervention is that it is a false analogy, because when somebody speeds in a car and the policemen stop saying that they are doing it at 67 miles an hour on a 60 zone, they are breaking the law. There is no question of that. The policeman says, gives them an admission and says, do not do it again. If he does it again, bang, he is prosecuted, so they do not do it. If you say that you can only take one lobster, whoops, I have taken two, do not do it again, and they take two lobster next time, they are a criminal. It will be enforced as the speeding law is enforced, so the analogy does not apply. Jeremy, I stop you wanting to intervene if you want to come in. I think that it is about the enforceability and discretion as the crux of the matter. I do not want to do nothing. That is my problem here. I think that we should do something. I think that we should empower the agencies to tackle what is a very serious problem. I really want to do my best to support that and the communities around it. I do not want to do nothing, but I do have a problem with this black-white issue around the one that is fine and two isn't. I appreciate that there will be a huge amount of discretion available to individual policing officers. I do trust them with their judgment, because they know this in the student side. I am in a difficult position, Mike, in that reason that I am inclined to go with you on your enolment, but I feel that by doing so I would be doing nothing, and that would be paying an injustice to the cause that we are trying to tackle here. I agree 100 per cent with what you have just said. I do not want us to do nothing. I absolutely do not want us to do nothing, but what I want us to avoid doing is the wrong thing. That is what I want us to avoid. It comes down to this point. Is bringing this order going to solve a problem? I disagree with that, and that is a fair point to make. You make your own judgment. That is the whole point of the scrutiny. We have a law at the moment that says it is against the law in an unregistered vessel to fish commercially. We have not really seen a lot of enforcement there. We have had one incident of people on a key that admitted to it stupidly, and that was the point that was made. It is not being enforced. The answer to enforcement is to produce another law that has the unintended consequence. Mike, I would like to bring this to an end. We are getting to the end. It does not stop you taking an intervention if you want to. It is up to you. If it is a new point. The officer told us in his evidence that they cannot do anything out at sea. They have to see the stuff being sold before they can do something. It is a bit like this. People have to be trailed. I just do not get your point, Mike. The commercial fishermen have said to me that this is not the way forward. The commercial fishermen have said to me at meetings that the most effective way of dealing with this problem is very simple. It is a simple one of definition. What is a commercial fisherman? If you define a commercial fisherman who takes more than five or six lobster pots out of harbour, that is involved in commercial fishing. You can then easily enforce the law. What we are doing here is creating a new law with unintended consequences. I will finish on that point. I think that whatever way the vote goes, we are doing our job as a committee. I think that is really important. I am pleased to say that there are not partisan issues that have not come out because there are not any. As far as I am concerned, when I moved the motion to a null, I thought that I was concerned that, unlike most SSIs that come before the committee, we give them cursory glances, most are not particularly controversial, most are technical in nature. This is not. This actually affects thousands of people. It can affect thousands of people across Scotland. At the point that I was making before, I was in trouble, was that this is the great benefit of this parliamentary system that we have in the Scottish Parliament. All I am asking for is to support the motion in the vote. What that does is simply say to the minister, I am sorry, that the committee has problems about this, and we would like the whole Parliament to look at it. That is all that we are asking them to do. We are not asking them to withdraw it. I am not asking him to revoke the order. I am not doing that. If you vote for this now, when we go to the vote, it is simply to say that the bureau programmes it for a discussion in Parliament so that we can have a proper examination of this order. Please do not just rub a stamp this through. Thank you. As the motion has not been withdrawn, I think that we should go straight to the question, and the question is that motion S5M-04500, in the name of Mike Marumble, is to be agreed. Are we all agreed? Okay, so there is dissent. I would ask therefore if we could do it by a simple ballot by raising your hands. All those in favour of motion S5M-04500, please raise your hands. All those opposed to motion S5M-04500, please raise your hands. There are no extensions. Therefore, the result is those in favour, three, those against, no, sorry, eight, and there were no extensions. Therefore, the motion is disagreed and the committee will therefore report to the Parliament accordingly. I would like to suspend briefly to allow the Cabinet Secretary to leave and to thank him in advance for the evidence that he has given to the committee. The third item on the agenda is an update on the fourth replacement crossing. During the topical questions yesterday, Mr Brown confirmed that the opening of the fourth replacement crossing is likely to be delayed, and the Cabinet Secretary contacted me yesterday to ask that, in light of that, the committee be prepared this morning to hear further details on that matter. Therefore, I would like to welcome Keith Brown, the Cabinet Secretary for the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work, and I would like to welcome back David Climie, despite the fact that I said when we last met that I hoped that I was not going to be seeing him again until we were looking at a wash-up of the project. Sally Cox, chair of the fourth crossing bridge constructors, and Michael Martin, the project director. I would ask the Cabinet Secretary if he would like to give a brief opening statement. I will do, as best I can. I thank you for the opportunity to come to the committee. I know that that was done at short notice. On March 8, I provided you with a brief update, and that was followed by a more detailed progress report from Transport Scotland. At that time, we advised the committee that fourth crossing bridge constructors, FCBC, the contractor, were targeting a May completion date. At notwithstanding the regular assurances about completion received from FCBC, I have challenged them to provide a guarantee on the opening to traffic date, a question that you also asked me when I appeared on 8 March. As a result of this challenge and as described in detail by David Climie in his evidence to the committee, FCBC has carried out a further programme review based on the progress made and the impact of weather on that progress. As part of that challenge, I in Transport Scotland have also stressed to FCBC the continued focus on maintaining health and safety as our top priority, which I know is at the forefront of everything that they do. In order for the review to be as robust as possible, FCBC have brought in planners and experts from around the world. The review takes full account of the likely weather impacts going forward and the implications of complex interrelated operations being carried out simultaneously. Transport Scotland and I received the results of the review from FCBC on Monday of this week. Since then, Transport Scotland has considered FCBC's plans carefully and I have discussed it with the FCBC board led by Sally Cox, who is here today. Having received Transport Scotland's assessment last night, I will now share that with the committee. Today, there are only nine weeks remaining to the end of May and the review has concluded it even with the best weather and we can see the weather today. This date is not now safely achievable as an opening to traffic date. At this stage in the project, a day lost due to weather cannot be recovered and has a direct impact on any follow-on activities. Since the start of 2017, there have been fewer clear weather windows than expected, particularly in relation to wind. This has delayed weather-dependent activities, causing them to bunch together at the end of the programme to a much greater degree than was anticipated in May last year. The bunching effect is very visible around the removal of the tower cranes. Those cranes can only be dismantled in wind speeds of less than 25 miles an hour. Although the crane removal is under way, it is not possible to safely work within a 50-metre radius of the crane itself, so this activity alone has the effect of sterilising the deck beneath and any work to the adjacent stay cables. This also has the impact on all deck-level activities such as waterproofing and surfacing. As anyone crossing the forth can attest, although recent good weather has helped, it has not yet been possible to bring the cranes down. I think on Monday this week, which, to all of us, is a glorious day. Again, wind was too high to carry out the operations at that height. FCBC also acknowledges that, given the uniqueness of the project and the fact that the owners' conditions that they have experienced working at height over the forth have created more challenges than they had anticipated. At this stage in the project, all remaining activities are vulnerable to weather conditions, and that vulnerability differs depending on the activity. Although tower crane removal and work on cable stays are sensitive to wind, waterproofing of the deck is sensitive to rain and surfacing is sensitive to rain at very low temperatures. FCBC's May 2016 programme acknowledged the complexity. However, at that time, in order to maximise deck availability, the activities were sequential and largely independent of each other, but due to slippage during recent months, the activities are now interdependent and often simultaneous, and consequently they rely on complex planning and favourable weather conditions. Should the weather conditions be unsuitable for one activity, that is a compounding effect on the subsequent activity and the other concurrent activities, many of which are critical. Taking all of this into account, FCBC is now advising that the opening to traffic date is more likely to be between mid-July and the end of August. To put that into context, that is around a four to ten-week delay on a six-year construction programme. The precise opening date will depend on the amount of weather downtime that occurs in the coming weeks, with the latest date being based on weather similar to that to which we have seen in February and March, if that continues to occur. That would mean up to 75 per cent downtime on the critical path activities such that are particularly sensitive to wind speeds of 25mph, such as tower crane and tower falsework removal and finishing works on the towers and stair cables. Although that level of downtime is not anticipated at this time of year, past experience has shown that it is possible and should therefore be taken into account. With so much simultaneous activity already under way, there are no opportunities to mitigate the effects of weather delays at this point of the construction programme. FCBC have assured me that they are fully supporting Michael Martin, the project director, in providing the resources that are required to complete the project at the earliest possible date. That is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the site has never been busier as a result of an additional 200 people being employed to help to complete the bridge. There are now over 1500 people working on the site, with operations continuing on a 24-hour basis seven days per week whenever the weather permits. Plant, equipment and workers have been kept on standby at considerable cost to the contractor so that no weather window is missed. It is very important to stress that the cost associated with the overrun will be fully covered by the contractor and so will not result in any increase to the overall project cost to the taxpayer, which stands at £1.35 billion as before. The £1.25 billion of savings released since the construction started are secure. The potential overrun on the contractual completion date of between four and 10 weeks is a huge disappointment to me and everybody involved with the project. However, it should be kept in perspective in terms of infrastructure projects of this size and complexity. The Queensferry crossing will be completed in six years from the date construction started and, within 10 years, it will be first committed to by the Scottish Government in December 2007 at a considerable saving to the taxpayer. Although we have not met our original ambitious targets for opening, which was, of course, opened six months ahead of the contractual completion date of mid-June, it should be noted that the project remains an outstanding achievement for everyone involved and will provide the people of Scotland with the resilient structure that is fit for the 21st century. It is already a world record breaker. It has been built in weather, which is seen, as you know, convener to heavy goods vehicles being blown over on its sister structure in the past two months alone, and it is significantly under budget. It has a design life of 120 years. I hope that committee members will be able to exercise a degree of perspective when they hear of a four to 10-week overrun into the summer period on a six-year project, which already had a year of contingency factored into its planning. The bridge is a project that Scotland can be proud of, and as we complete it, we will not compromise the extraordinary quality of the construction or, of course, the safety of the workforce. The important thing at this stage is that none of us push the contractor to compromise the safety of those workers who we trust to work in all weathers to deliver this high-quality iconic structure for us. In conclusion, convener, as I have said before, I want to ensure that the members remain fully appraised of the progress of this and all of the major transport projects. I will commit to providing a further update to the committee at the end of May. Of course, the committee can ask for any other updates at any time, but at the end of May on the progress that is made in the next two months and an update on the opening to traffic date. The bridge, convener, is substantially complete. It will stand for a century or more. It is frustrating that it will not be finished earlier, but my overriding priority is to have the bridge finished safely and to the highest standards of construction. It is already a stunning bridge. It has developed significantly since you and the committee last were there, I think, last autumn. It may be the committee that you want to see the progress that has been made, and I am happy to ensure that that happens. Cabinet Secretary, thank you very much. I am sure that the committee will want to consider what it sees as appropriate intervals between reports from you on the bridges that go forward, and that will be discussed at the committee. There are questions lining up. I would like to ask two, if I may, to start with. Can you just confirm, Cabinet Secretary, that it was on Monday, 27 March, that you first got an inkling that the bridge would not be opened within the timescale that we have been given on 8 March? That is when I got both the reports from the contractor and when I met Sally Cox and others involved with the bridge. So, the simple answer is yes, that is the first indication on Monday, 27 March. That is when we have got the written report yet. One further question before we go on to the others, if I may, could we just say that the committee understands this? I think that a lot of people in Scotland will believe that we have one of the mildest and best winters that we have had for a long time. Maybe an open winter would be a better description. Can you give some idea when you are planning how this winter has differed as far as weather conditions in the construction of the bridge over the winters that we have had for the last 10 years? Does it rate us easier, not so easy to work? That is not just wind, that is to do with all the other elements such as snow and rain that we have had less of this year. I think that I would want to emphasise the wind factor. It is that which has caused this issue, and it has been the case that this year we have had far fewer intervals. It is necessary to have a 48-hour clear period that you see coming in order to start taking the cranes down from their current height. We have not had those windows. I mentioned yesterday in answer to the topical question that the one crane that has been taken down took 65 days, as opposed to the 15 days that it is meant to have taken. That has been because there have not been those windows of 48-hours notice. That is with weather forecasting. The weather forecast did not anticipate this fog today. It did not anticipate some of the wind that we had yesterday, which again stopped to work on the towers. It is to do with the consistency of the wind that we have had over that period that has affected the crane removal in particular. It may be best if others come in on that as well, convener. David, do you want to come in on that? Some people will be concerned that they still do not understand having had such an open winter why there is further delays. I understand that. I remember when I came here last time, I perhaps amused you a little by reading you the weather forecast. That was not done with the intention of being amusing. It was given to you on the basis that we have to plan the works very carefully. They are being planned literally on a day-to-day basis. We have to rely on the weather forecasting information that we get in order to plan the works properly. You are quite right that it has not been a particularly bad winter for snow, it has not been a particularly wet winter and that has certainly helped on the road works. The road works have progressed exceptionally well. However, what has happened is that we have not had a particularly large number of storms. That is also the case. I think that we have had three or four have come through and they have been named storms. However, what we have had is the milder weather that has meant that there has been a steady wind. A steady wind is a significant problem to certain activities. We have highlighted the tower crane removal as one of them and that has been the most visible that everyone can see. What cannot be seen is the other work that is going on around the towers, completing the installation of the stay cables, putting the tension rings and the guide deviators at the top there. That is work that is carried out using rope access and man baskets. FCBC has actually significantly increased the resource that they have in that area to try to deal with the issue, because the fact that the wind blows greater than 25 miles an hour impacts on them being able to work in that area. It is a combination of the activities that we have been trying to do. At the time of year, we have been trying to do them and the weather that we have had at the time that we have tried to do those activities. It is not that you characterise it as it has been an awful winter or that the weather has been particularly severe. It is the fact that we have had steady winds throughout a long period of time that has not created the weather windows that we have needed to be able to do the activities. Is there anything that you would like to add? Perhaps I could add something to that. When we first looked at this, when we planned this project, we planned it on a 20 per cent downtime of weather. If you look back in January, and when we reviewed it in May last year, we actually added time to that based on the weather that we had experienced since we started the project. January and February of this year, we have looked at 40 per cent greater downtime in January and over 175 per cent greater downtime than what we had in our latest programme. It is those effects that are causing the issues. I am sure that members will want to build on that. Stewart, you were first to ask the current question. Thank you very much. In a week when Queensland had a cyclone of 163 miles an hour, perhaps, if we are worrying about 25, we are relatively lucky. I want to explore a little bit more about taking the cranes down. Is there a difference between the weather requirement to take the jib down? I think that, from previous evidence, Mr Clemmie pointed out that the jib had to be aligned with the wind direction. Once the jib is down, are the constraints less severe in taking the tower down? The simple answer is no. The reason is that I gave you a long description last time when I appeared of how the whole process went. The fact is that, once the jib is below the top of the tower, at that point it cannot rotate anymore, so at that point it creates far greater loads on the mast. The deconstruction is taking place at the bottom of the tower, and the whole thing is taken down. The jib remains in place until it is the last thing removed, more or less. More or less, but you are actually taking jib sections out at the top and the crane jacks itself down, but the jib stays in place until you are down fairly close to the deck. So, therefore, while that jib is there, and that is for most of the time that it has been taken down, there is this risk of strong wind gusts making the jib interfere with the tower itself, and, in extremis, perhaps causing it damage, and certainly damaging the crane, I would imagine. It is actually not a risk of damaging the tower because, as it is coming down in that position, it is at the jib is locked, so it cannot rotate. Now, because the jib is locked, that means that, if the winds are severe, the crane itself could well be damaged, and in extreme conditions, yes, you are correct, the crane potentially could collapse. Perhaps my other point, which I think we can deal with fairly briefly, is just on the accuracy of forecasts because we are told that we need the 48 hours window, so, clearly, we need some confidence that that window is going to exist if we start a particular process, depending on it. How often has the forecast, in respect of wind, deviated from the outcome in that respect? I speak as the minister who, on a 0.4 degree error in the forecast, found eight times as much snow falling as it had been forecast in 2010. Well documented, well understood. I think we would say that the forecasts that we get are pretty accurate on the day that you get them. They change considerably in the five days looking ahead. I mean, certainly, we looked at the forecast at the beginning of this week. At that point, it looked as if the wind was coming in on Wednesday, as it is. There's no wind, and we've actually got fog, so we actually can't work today, because not because of wind, but because we can't actually see to do the work on the crane. So, it does change quite significantly, but FCBC takes a considerable amount of effort in getting as accurate weather forecasts as they can, but the very nature of the weather in winter is, to a degree, unpredictable, particularly with regard to the tracking and the location of weather systems. A slight change in that weather system track, track, can make an enormous difference on the wind that you get. Can I just, first of all, to say that when the committee visited the bridge at the end of October, it was obvious to me that there was a great difficulty in reaching the end of May target, and I have to say to David Clemmie that he's got very loyal members of staff, because every time I asked them, they said, of course, that's the programme and rolled their eyes at me, and I thought, well, there we are. Even they don't believe it's going to be the end of May, so I don't think it's surprising that the end of May target is not going to be reached. Can I just say—the minister said it again today in his presentation—that it's significantly under budget, and the two things that the cabinet secretary has been saying over the last year was that it's on time and under budget. I'd just like to ask him how can it be significantly under budget if there's a fixed-budget contract? I've had this discussion before, convener, and it may be an uncomfortable fight for Mr Rumbles, but this is nearly a quarter of a billion pounds below the budget that was set, and even that tender when it came in was substantially below the tender range that we set this out at, which is about £1.7 billion to about £2.3 billion pounds. The current expected cost is £1.35 billion pounds. I think it's fairly straightforward, that's a substantial reduction. Mike Rums has quite rightly asked about the effect of inflation and the forecast for inflation in relation to that, and I accept those points. Inflation is a very big part of it. It wouldn't be true in other projects, because in other projects the Government wouldn't tend to take the risk of inflation, that would tend to be done through other means, and it rests with the contractor. We took the risk this time, we've had a big benefit from that, but it's also been very tight project management in relation to that, which has added to those savings, so around £250 million pounds below budget. Minister, I think that what the Government has done is the right thing. I'm saying that you've done the right thing. You've got to fix a fixed budget, which means that an overrun doesn't fall on the taxpayer, it falls on the companies that have got the contracts. I'm actually congratulatio—I just don't think that the pudding needs to be over-egged all the time, and I think that we should just stick with the facts. I think that we'll move straight on to the next question, if I may. Rhoda, I think that it's with you. Yes. In answer to the convener's question, you said that Britain's information about the delay had come through on 27 March. Was there any verbal indication of a delay before that? Back to the last meeting of the committee, I think that the convener mentioned that I used the word hope a couple of times. Obviously, Transport Scotland talks regularly with the contractor and they work on the project, but just as it's true with the other major projects, the process is fairly straightforward, as it was last year. We asked the contractor to provide a programme to tell us what the programme is for the completion date. They did that and produced that on Monday. At that point, Transport Scotland had some specialist people employed to do that. They then analysed that programme. Only after it's been analysed and interrogated, which in this case has been done in a very short space of time, that we agree to what's being said, we don't just agree if a contractor comes forward and says that we're going to be 10 months late, we don't just say accept that, and neither do we publish it at that time, we will then interrogate it and come to an agreed position with the contractor. That's the process that's been followed at this time. It's the right way to do it, to have in writing from the contractor a properly analysed programme of works that take you through to completion date, and then to respond to that. That's what's happened in this case. There was an earlier verbal indication that there might be a delay. No, there were discussions going on all the time between Transport Scotland and the contractor. Transport Scotland, David Climey, is on-site all the time. He will see the issues, he will have seen the issues with the cranes. Of course, the question is, can we finish this till May, but the only way we can answer that is to have the programme properly analysed by the contractor brought back, which is what happened on Monday. Just on another issue, if I may, in your opening statement, you talked about mid July to the end of August as a possible completion date. Can you be more specific or whether or not it will overrun the end of August as well? When I came to the Parliament last year, I was asked to guarantee the May date this year, and I didn't do that because I can't do that, whether it is the master in this equation. What we've got and the dates that have been provided to us and which we have now analysed mid July to August is a very high degree of certainty, but it's not absolutely certain. We've just heard about last year in terms of March and April, we've seen the situation here in January and February. If that continues, then of course it's going to have an impact on the programme, but what we are saying is that that is the likely date in which it will fall between mid July and the end of August. That's a range, and it's for that reason that I haven't given a specific date, because we do realise the variability of the weather and rather than give that specific date, what we're taking is the contractor's confidence about when it will be completed having been interrogated by Transport Scotland, so that's why we're giving that range just now rather than a definitive date. I'm assuming that you have no wish to be back in front of this committee or indeed the Parliament saying that there will be a further delay. A wise man would say that delivery and opening of the bridge to transport by the end of August was a 100 per cent possibility. I cannot believe that that is not the case. Where is mid July? Is that a 10 per cent possibility? Is that a 2 per cent possibility? I think that people will rightly know, without criticising anyone for delays, that what probability it will be to fall within the timescale and where. I also think that people will understand the fact about the variability of the weather. I take the point earlier on about people experiencing a generally mild winter, but I think that the committee knows from being on the deck previously. I'm not sure where the committee went up the towers, but it's a completely different weather system. So, for example, people go and check on the website what the wind speed is, but that gives you it from the deck of the fourth road bridge, not from this. It's a completely different environment that high up, and that's why we're working to get the cranes down. That's the reason for not being definitive. I would like to be definitive. As to the relative conference around those dates, perhaps David could answer in relation to that. I've said right through this process that whether there's a master in relation to this, and that remains the case even with those dates being provided. I don't think that I would add more to that in terms of adding percentage allowances on to it. We've identified a range, we've reviewed that range, we believe that it's a realistic range, and I wouldn't want to put any more than that on to it. Sorry, just so we go. The end of August isn't even 100 per cent guarantee either, is that what you're saying? I've never given 100 per cent guarantee. That's fine. It's just so people understand, because I think that managing expectations is as important as the rest of it. The next person, I think, was Richard. Did you have a point and then John Finnie? At the end of the day, I realise wind speed, variation, whatever is different, other than that, all of that. I've got two questions. One of them, maybe I'll answer it myself, but why can't we take the crane down as if it's not the super Puma helicopters that can take that weight to take a crane away or whatever? Yes or no? Yes is the answer. I've worked on a previous bridge project where the cranes were taken down by a helicopter. So, could we not use a helicopter to take the crane down? It creates several difficulties. First of all, helicopters can already operate in certain weather conditions, and secondly, helicopters create enormous downdraft, which actually creates the wind that you're trying to avoid, so it is a significant difficulty, and it's something that's been looked at. We're looking at many different options in alternatives to the ones that are currently being undertaken, but it was looked at and no, it's not considered viable. I thought that that would be a case, but again, cabinet secretary, everyone, this is a third iconic bridge on the fourth. Basically, everyone's wanting it open. Why are we not just better to say that the bridge will be open when it's open? I have said previously that it's a fact that the bridge will be open when it's open, but it's also true to say that I've said previously that we had a fatality on the bridge last year, Mr John Cousins, on 28 April. What we were saying earlier on about how the bunching effect of the cranes not being taken down puts lots of pressure on activities on the deck of the bridge. It means that there's lots of simultaneous activities going on there. I'm 1500 people all over that project just now. We really do have to have safety very much in mind, and I think whatever the date is, and that's what we've given, is what we believe to be the likely date, the range of the date between mid-July and August. That will be subject to both weather and safety. We'll be doing nothing on the contractor. I know Michael in particular who, as I've said to the committee before, interviews every person starting on the bridge and the first question, he asks them what's the most important thing, and they'll say whatever it is, finishing the bridge, you'll say no, it's safety. That will drive as much as the weather, how we complete this bridge. The next person to ask a question is John Finnie. Can I ask members to please try and ask one question, if you may, just for timings? Thank you, convener. Go on to cabinet secretary. I'm grateful. I think you said a couple of times whether it's the master. I'm a bit with Mr Lyle on this. You take your time, and the bridge will be open when it's open, because I think that safety is paramount. Can I ask about the wider implications? Of course, this is part of a bigger network, excuse me, of significant roadworks, on either side of the bridge and, indeed, further afield in the past, I've asked about public transport. Are there any implications for the existing structure and for the road network outwith the bridge, please? Yes, and obviously that's more into my agreement, and Humza, you should have streamed it, but no, that bridge, obviously, we've had the difficulty last year with the existing fourth-row bridge, which has been resolved. It's had a full health check since then, apart from two drivers going across the bridge when they shouldn't have done. That bridge is operating extremely well. There is no threat to the bridge, and it will continue to operate during the time that we're waiting for the new bridge to be completed. It's obviously frustrating, because that bridge is to be a public transport corridor, and we want to see it being used for that. There'll be advantages in terms of bus timings and so on as well. We want to see those advantages as quickly as possible, but there's no implications for the existing bridge. There's obviously the question of the tie-in of the new road networks coming through. They're substantially complete. Anybody that's travelled that route will see how complete they are, especially on the south side. There's got to be a tie-in done at the appropriate time, but there's no, as far as I'm aware, no implications for the existing bridge, which will continue to service all the traffic that's currently there. Thank you. Jamie, you're next. And could I reiterate some of the other comments made that I think of paramount importance as both the quality of the work and also the safety of the workers? I think that's something we'll share. In that context then, given that there's still a huge amount of uncertainty around the July date, we could have high winds continuing throughout spring and summer. Wouldn't it be more sensible or better or more realistic, certainly from a planning point of view, given that this is quite a massive event, the opening itself from a planning point of view, a huge event, simply to have a worst case date to release to the public rather than those continuous sort of false deadlines? It's a genuine question. Wouldn't it be better to give a worst case target opening date rather than those hope for the best dates that we seem to be working to? Well, I very much rely on the advice provided by the contractor as interrogated by Transport Scotland. The dates that I've given are what they believe are the likely ranges. I suppose that even in that you could say that the worst case scenario that they are giving to us just now is the end of August. Of course, it's possible that you could have extremely different weather that can prevent that and push it. That's, of course, possible, but that's not the advice that we're given on this. You're right, I don't want to keep coming back to the committee with another date. That is what I'm being told by the contractors. The other point, which you picked up in relation to the quality of what's done, is a great project. You'll have seen that with your own eyes when you went to visit it. The danger is that somebody tries to shortcut something or do something to a lesser standard. That can happen if they are pushed, particularly in pressure to do that, and we've been keen not to do that, not just for safety, but also to make sure that the bridge is completed in the correct way. I'm told that we can complete the bridge in the correct way and we can do it safely with a window between mid-July and the end of August. I'm struggling to understand some of the timescales, because, 21 days ago, as I understand it, three weeks ago, 8 March, things seemed to be okay. We're now looking at a four to ten-week delay. On 8 March, there already was a problem. Why didn't the committee hear about that? David Cymru can come back on the points that he raised at the committee, but I think that substantially what you had was the prospect of taking down one of the cranes, which we thought would take 15 days. The crucial part is to get it down to deck level, because that's where you need the wind speeds to be lower. That can be done in 15 days. Plans were put in place at that stage to make sure that the other two towers would be taken down concurrently rather than one at a time. It was felt at that time that that was possible if they had those windows that were previously mentioned in the 48 hours. That's where they were 30 days ago. I don't know if you want to say anything further. David Cymru asked a similar question when we ran out here on 8 March. I was focused at that time on the tower cranes coming down, and the waterproofing has been the two key activities. Clearly, the north tower cranes took 65 days to come down. It needs 12 to 15 working days to bring it down. What were the last days of the 65? The first day was the 21st of January, and the last day was the 27th of March. That was the first piece that was ready to be removed, so the very last piece that was removed down at water level. That's the 65 days. Therefore, it took over four times as long in terms of the actual calendar days that it took compared to the number of working days that were required. Having had that happen, even though the two tower crane removals are running in parallel now, the centre and the south, which previously were going to be one after the other, you have to admit that we had to now, and in the review of the planning, that they had to consider that there was a possibility of that same duration occurring again. It may not, but we had to take into account. It had happened, and it wasn't theoretical. It's now happened, so therefore you have to take into account. It could happen again. Can I just follow up on that slightly? When the first crane was taken down, were the other cranes no longer being required? Could they not have been all taken down at the same time? That's a reasonable question, I would have thought. No, they couldn't, because they were still carrying out work at the time. As well as the above deck work, there's the tower falsework underneath the deck. On the north tower, that falsework has been removed. That was removed in January and February. The first stages of removing that falsework used the tower crane for removing it. The north tower crane was always going to be the first one that was ready to be removed, and subsequently it was thought that originally it would be the south tower crane and the centre tower crane. The progress on the trestles has been able to make reasonable progress, so now the two tower cranes can be run in parallel. I think that we're all agreed that safety and quality is the main focus here, and thank you for coming to update us. In answer to your question, cabinet secretary, no, we didn't get to go up the tower and it wasn't for lack of trying. If there's another invite for us to go back and do so when the wind speeds are lower, then we would quite like to do that. You mentioned in your opening statement about an extra 200 workers. Are they now taking on until the end of the project, and is there scope to take on any more should they be needed? I think that it's only fair to let the contractor who's responsible for that, and it's their decision. I have to commend the contractor for the effort that they've put into this. They're doing this at substantial cost to themselves. Perhaps they could answer it. Just on the point about the tower, for those who are able and willing, I'm sure that the FCBC and Transport Scotland can make that happen if they want to do that. I'm very surprised to hear that our colleague Murdo Fraser actually did do that, given the way he blansed to when I invited him to do it in the first place. It's a stunning experience. You're looking down on the other two bridges, but we'll make sure that happens for those who want to do it and on the issue that the employees, perhaps FCBC, could answer. With regard to resources, I'm reviewing resources every day. The planning of the project is now very dynamic, bearing in mind the conditions that we've been facing. Planning is the daily task of my operational team and myself and the executive team review the planning of the project three times a week. We take the best available data that we have for weather so that we can take account of that and do those things that the weather allows us to do. It may not be what we'd planned several days earlier, but we have to take a dynamic approach to it. I will apply whatever resources I can, whether they are human physical resources or plans and equipment, to maximise the opportunities that we've got. Obviously, I always take safety as the number one priority. Build it safely, build it right first time, it will get finished as soon as it can be finished. I cannot bring people on to the site who do not have the skills to do the tasks that are required to be done, so that's a judgment that I also have to make. Thank you. I'd like to thank you all for coming to the committee. As I said in my opening remarks, I made the mistake of saying that I hope that I wouldn't be seeing you again. I suspect I may be seeing you again. Cabinet Secretary, could the committee get back to you after this to say when we'd like to programme any updates on the bridge so that we can be kept appraised of things how they're developed? Thank you, all of you, for attending. I'd like to briefly suspend the meeting to reconfigure the panel. Thank you for attending today. Thank you. I'd