 We will be happy to hear the news. Welcome to the 25th meeting of 2015 in the Rural Affairs Climate Change and Environment Committee. I hope that everyone had an enjoyable recess. Obviously some people have been very busy producing work towards what our business will be. Before we move to the first item, remind everyone present to switch off mobile phones as they can affect broadcasting system. You may notice committee members consulting y ddim yn ddim yn gweithio i ddim yn gwneud cydweithio'r ffarmadau cydweithio'r ddigital. Y agenda item 1 yn y cyfnod o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r bobl yn cael ei ddweud o'r ddweud, y ddweud y ydw i'n gweithio'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud, ac mae gynch yn ei ddweud i ddweud hyn, rwy'n gwybod. Yr cyfnod, rwy'n gweithio. Y Llan reform y bydd ar fynd yn oedd o gael'r bydd yng Nghymru ar gyfer y bydd gwneud o'r bilynydd a'r hynny a chydag y bydd yn ym ymdeithasol gy lle yng Nghymru. Felly fel gyfer y bydd yn gael'r bydd a gwneud o'r bydd nid o'r bydd. Panael 1 oeddiogel o gael, oligodaeth ar yr Y Llan reform y bydd pwgyrchu i gyffredinol panel 1 i 5 y bydd. Panel 2 yn ymweld yn rhywbeth ym 5 yn sixi a'u gyda, a'r gyffredinol yn argyrch yn parel 10 o panel 3. Rydyn ni'n gweld yn y dywed, wedi'i wneud o cwrs-dfyniadau sy'n gweithio ddim yn ei argyrch yn y ddechrau. Gweithio i'r gwerthu chi, ac y panel wedi eu cyfrifetau chyfodol o draws am gyfgredinol, y Deputy Director for Agriculture, Rural Development and Land Reform. amser, amser, amser, amser. Gyraedd i ni wedi chi i ganhefnol yr Llywodraeth Mandd, Kate Thomson, amser. Ffiona Taylor, Matt Smith a Rachel Reiner—odd y cyfnod, iddyn nhw ddim yn cyfrifion mewn yng Nghymru. Rwy'r gweithio,edd o wybodaeth i ni i gwybod i'r ddechrau i chi i ddefnyddio'r ddaf yn diam o gwahanol. a'r ffordd hwn yw'r ysgol nhw ffordd. Dweud i'n rhaid i'w ffordd o ddull mryd o'r ddau peynon, amddai'n ein peth o'r cas i'ch awr yn dweud? Felly, dweud, if that deals with the detail, we can take that later by a short introductory statement please. Dweud i'n rhaid i dweud i'n ddau'n ddau peynon o feithio ar gyfer gweithiaf ysgrückeid o'r ddau oedd yn rhoi tyntio am y Llandform Scotland Bill. The bill, which is part of the 2014-15 programme for government, is the next step on the Scottish Government's ambitious land reform programme and is key to the Government's aspirations for a fairer, more equal and socially just Scotland. As the committee are aware, the bill is the culmination of significant work in relation to land reform and agricultural holdings over the last few years. In 2012, Scottish ministers appointed the independent land reform review group, who reported in May 2014. They made 62 wide-ranging recommendations, some of which are being taken forward within this bill and others are being taken forward as part of a wider programme of land reform measures. In 2013, the agricultural holdings legislation review group began an extensive review across the tenant farming sector and published their final report in January of this year. Again, the bill takes forward a number of the recommendations that they made. We've worked closely with stakeholders in developing the bill and in December 2014 the Scottish Government published a consultation on the future of land reform in Scotland. That received over 12,000 responses, with 84 per cent of those being from individuals. After careful consideration of the review group report and a thorough analysis of the responses to the consultation, we have a bill that contains a number of wide-ranging provisions that are intended to meet those policy objectives. Firstly, the bill deals with ensuring an effective system of land governance and on-going commitment to land reform in Scotland by establishing a Scottish Land Commission with a commitment to publish and review every five years a land rights and responsibilities statement setting out the Government's objectives on land reform. Secondly, the bill will enhance sustainable development in relation to land and improve the transparency and accountability of land ownership by requiring the publication of clear guidance to landowners on engaging with communities, introducing a new right to buy land to further sustainable development. The bill also gives greater powers to the keeper of the registers of Scotland to request and hold information on the proprietors of land and a right to request the disclosure of information on those in control of land, where lack of information is causing harm to communities or individuals. Finally, the bill demonstrates a commitment to the management of land and rights and land for the common good by modernising and improving aspects of land ownership and rights over land by removing the exemption for non-domestic rates for shooting and deer stalking, strengthening existing legislation on deer management, common access, common good and access rights and taking forward significant recommendations on changes to agricultural holdings made by the agricultural holdings legislation review group. A lot of work has gone into preparing this bill and we would like to take this opportunity to thank many stakeholders for their hard work and consideration of the policy in the bill and we look forward to answering your questions today. We are at the present time faced with a bill that is extensive, as you say. We have a limited time for questions and we want to try and get to the heart of some of the things that will help the process. We realise that you are here to try and tell us about the background, so given that it seems from what we read that there are many sets of regulations that are anticipated by this bill that will be generated by it. We would like to know why many of those are not set out in the face of the bill because it is difficult for us at the present time to know the import of the regulations in terms of the policy objectives that you laid out in your speech. I am going to ask Kate to comment on that in a minute. I will just note that we have been invited to give evidence to the Delegated Powers and Land Law Reform Committee, which will obviously give an opportunity to explain a little bit further. In general, as we have noted, the bill spans a wide range of policy areas and contains a total of 43 regulation-making powers. It is often the case in many bills that there are areas of detail that are largely administrative and would, in the normal course of events, be left to secondary legislation. It is also quite normal for the full picture on any legislative topic to be made up of a combination of primary and secondary legislation. Around half of the regulation-making powers in the bill relate to agricultural holding, so it may help the committee to ask the third panel directly about any regulation-making powers contained in part 10. Many of the regulation-making powers in relation to part 5 of the bill, which contains the provisions on the right to buy to further sustainable development, and many of those regulation-making powers replicate those that exist in similar and other legislation on community rights to buy. Obviously, the Parliament has every right to scrutinise where this balance should lie. As Trudy mentioned, we received yesterday a convocation of questions from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, which we will be answering over the next few days. Certainly, if there are any specific concerns on any specific areas that the committee or stakeholders raised during the stage 1 process, we will be happy to consider those and try to provide as full and detailed a response as we can on those in due course. Is it your impression that there is going to be a greater number of pieces of secondary legislation associated with this bill, compared to what was required to enact the land reform bill of 2003? I wouldn't say that I was completely familiar with the number of pieces of secondary legislation that were required under the 2003 act. I think that decisions about when regulations are more appropriate, when it's more appropriate to be in primary legislation, very much depends on the policy and the level of the detail of the policy that you are enacting. I couldn't really answer that question at the moment. I just thought that it would be interesting to compare, but there were obviously agricultural holdings at the same time. We are combining those two in one bill this time. It might be that there is an aggregate number that is similar, but I don't know whether anyone does. Be useful for you to tell us at some point later. I will go away and have a look at that and come back later. Given that much of the bill is expected to be scrutinised and then used by communities, landlords and tenants, are you content that it is sufficiently accessible and easy to understand? I would say that the Scottish Government takes structure seriously and consider carefully the needs of the end-user when drafting all bills. The explanatory notes and policy memorandum that accompanies the bill should aid the reader in understanding the provisions in the bill and the underlying policy content of the bill. How particular sections are set out will depend on a number of factors that will be considered carefully by policy and legal officials in deciding the final format. Further, generally, with legislation, Scottish ministers and other public bodies would seek to aid understanding of the legislation and how it operates in practice by publishing guidance. Once the bill has passed through Parliament and has been clarified, for instance, Revenue Scotland has guidance on the devolved taxes, and the Scottish Government has published very helpful guidance on the community right to buy under the Landform Scotland Act 2003. More than happy to consider any concerns that the committee or stakeholders may have on any particular provisions and would happily consider any suggested recommendations for improvement and come back with an explanation as to why things are structured the way they are. Have you had any approaches by stakeholders for clarifications about the meanings of any parts of the bill that we are discussing in these set of questions? We have had conversations with a number of stakeholders over the summer since the bill was introduced and there are a number of areas where we have sought to provide further clarification. We have done that on a one-to-one basis. Once we have a clear picture through stage 1, if there is anything that we can do to produce further documents to help with those clarifications, we will happily do so. The question of the regulatory powers is very briefly and conveniently, if I may. It is really just to make a point on that. From my point of view, given the role of scrutiny that we have on this committee, it is not really the number of them that concerns me as much as to what those regulatory powers are about. For instance, when it comes to rent reviews, we are talking about rents being based on productive capacity, and yet we do not have that on the face of the bill. I think that that is going to make it very hard for us to scrutinise it properly, given the lack of detail that there is. To my mind, it is not the number of regulatory powers that are the problem. It is what they refer to. I just really want to make that point upon me. On the point of clarification, I wonder if we could have an indication from you in a short list of the one-to-one pieces of clarification that you have given to stakeholders, because it would be useful for us to know before we come to questions with those stakeholders what points they are unclear about. I would be more than happy to follow up. Obviously, all the officials have had various conversations on the various parts, but we could certainly follow up with that. A summary of those would be most useful. There are areas in which people wish to see improvements to the bill. They very often are predicated upon recommendations that came from the Land Reform Review Group, issues of the Rose and December consultation that appeared to have changed or narrowed, and certainly the number of those I want to refer to during the day. Let me start with the land rights and responsibilities statement. I think that almost all the people that I have spoken to over the summer about this issue are concerned with the narrow nature of the bill's description. It is described in one, two, as a statement of the Scottish ministers' objectives for land reform. That is different from what the December consultation indicated, and it is very different from what the Land Reform Review Group indicated. They indicated that the bill might move towards a proper national land policy. Can you explain the changes that have taken place in the drafting instructions for the bill that have led to the narrowing and the reasons for them? Yes, happily. First of all, it certainly was not intended to be a narrowing. The Scottish ministers' intentions are that the land rights and responsibilities policy statement that was consulted on in December would be the starting basis for drafting up the land rights and responsibilities statement that would eventually be published under part 1. It is not intended to be a narrowing from that sense. I would hope that that was made clear in the policy memorandum, but we can take the point away that it is maybe not clear from the draft. I just want to make the point that we are working on the basis of what is in the bill. In the bill it says a statement of the Scottish ministers' objectives for land reform. That is what is on the face of the bill. I think that this is the point about secondary legislation and about how the bill is drafted. It is really important, if we are to have confidence—and the rural Scotland in particular—that it is absolutely clear. If it is not narrowing, I think that we need to see that on the face of the bill. We can certainly take that on when I will happily discuss that with legal colleagues whether a change needs to be made. The instructions and the intention is that part 1 section 1 would be broad enough to allow for a statement similar to that that was consulted upon. Obviously, we had a lot of responses in the consultation to land rights and responsibilities policy statement. It was the highest level of response in the consultation and there was a high degree of support over 80 per cent to those. There were numbers of comments varying from general support into some quite detailed comments and it certainly would be our attention that the policies and principles in the consultation paper, along with the detailed responses to the consultation paper, would be our starting point for taking this forward. In that discussion with lawyers and others, I wonder if you would take account of a change in development that took place in the community empowerment bill where there was a reference to, essentially, external validation of the points. External validation here would come from the UN FAO's voluntary guidelines and responsible governance of tenure. This is a document that has been endorsed by the 700 delegates from over 133 countries. A reference to that would widen this in the way that the LRG wanted it to be widened and would provide the context so that people could understand how land reform policy is set. That is a high level statement that people are looking for. If that is entered in the record, it might be helpful that lawyers looked at this and entered into discussion. I am happy to consider any recommendation that the committee makes. There are a wide number and range of documents and treaties and principles that encompass land reform, which is such a broad area. Certainly, in taking this forward, our intention would be to consult further and thoroughly on the scope and remit of the statement. I am quite happy to take that away. One final point. Although the statement will be laid before the Parliament, the intention was always that the statement would be debated by the Parliament. I think that that is an issue that has become unclear in drafting terms. I think that the active involvement of the Parliament with the statement is something that many people would be looking for. My understanding is that there does need to be anything specific in the legislation to allow Parliament to debate or to consider the statement, but I am certainly happy to consider it. In terms of permissive debate but in terms of mandating discussion, that would be helpful in the legislation. I am again happy to take that away and consider further. Thank you. Thank you very much. I am looking at the Land Commission now, Dave Thompson. Thank you very much, convener. Good morning to the panel. The first point that I would like to raise is about the title of the Scottish Land Commission, as it is proposed in the bill. That is a journey that we are embarking on. We have been on that journey for a while in relation to reform of land legislation and so on. The commission is obviously going to be looking at various issues of reform into the future. If you could explain to me why the word reform has been dropped from the Land Commission's title. I will make some comments and pass to Fiona. Essentially, the commission is now going to take account of what came out of the agricultural holding. It will now also include a tenant farmer commissioner. The view was that a Scottish Land Commission was a broader title than a land reform commissioner would encompass the work of the tenant farmer commissioner. At the point of public consultation, which was December 2014, we did consult on the notion of having a Scottish Land Reform Commission, and that was what it was named in the consultation document. We then had, in January 2014, the report of the Agricultural Holdings Legislation Review Group, which recommended the establishment of the tenant farming commissioner. Given that it is current Scottish Government policy to minimise the establishment of public bodies as far as possible, and also that the establishment of both offices would be to similar timescales, the decision was taken by ministers to put the two together so that they could share staff and resources and make efficiencies that way but still have their own remits. It is considered that the title that the body now has, the Scottish Land Commission, is more suitable given the broader remit. I am glad that you are confident that the parts of the ball dealing with agricultural holdings are going to solve the problems of agricultural holdings way into the future. I have got my doubts myself. I am sure that lots of other issues will arise. There will still be the need for reform even in relation to ag holdings as we move on for obvious reasons. The word reform has a significance within the general public. It indicates a willingness of the Government to continue to look for reform because there is lots to do in general land reform terms and also in relation to ag holdings. It is something that I would ask that you think about again because it gives a really good, powerful political message about where the Government wants to go in the future. Absolutely. We are happy to take anything away and consider it. Thank you very much for that. The Scottish Government's position is exactly that this is part of a journey and there is a lot of work still to be done. There is a lot going on in this ambitious bill but there will be more to come. I think that the point is around whether or not the title of the commission does what we all agree needs to be done. Thank you. Just another point about the commission itself and its membership. I notice that in the bill the commission has to appoint people who have experience or expertise in a range of issues, such as land reform law finance and so on. If that is sufficiently wide or if any consideration was given to other more specific areas such as forestry, land management and there will be other areas as well, that might in the face of it look relatively restrictive. Can you comment on that? Certainly yes. The members of the commission, as you said, will need a broad range of expertise and the bill requires Scottish ministers to have regard to the desirable relative for the commission having expertise in land reform, law of finance, economic issues, planning, development and environmental issues. That is a non-exhaustive list and we consider that the ones that we have listed there cover all areas and other sectors. We consider that those are the most relevant for the five land commissioners in taking forward the programme of work and considering the impact of law and policy in relation to land in Scotland. Of course, the commission will have a budget to procure advice and research externally and will be able to draw on other expertise anyway. It also has the ability to establish committees and that sort of thing. It will be able to draw on other expertise. We did give consideration to extending the list but where do you draw the line in relation to listing different sectors? That is why we have kept it narrow but we will of course or ministers will of course always be taking into account different sectors and how they are represented within those categories. I understand the reasoning but what would concern me a little bit is that with a list like that there are people with other skills and experience and expertise who might feel that they do not fit into that category so I am not going to put myself forward. It might actually restrict the pool of people who are available. Again, I think that it is just something that we need to, and the Government needs to, think a little bit more about as we move on. Just very briefly, one of the criticisms, if that is the right word, or one of the concerns that has been raised and a lot of people who have come back to us in written evidence is that there appears to be no cross-referencing with this bill to things like the land use strategy. I just wonder whether it is envisaged that part of the commission's work would be to cross-reference the work that it is doing with other rural areas of policy like the land use strategy. It will ultimately be for the land commissioners themselves to establish their own programme of work and what they wish to take forward. I do not know Kate, do you want to add to that in terms of cross-referencing with other Government policy areas? Certainly the intention for the land commissioners is that the land commissioners will be free to look at any area of policy in relation to land in Scotland, so they will be free to look at particular areas or to look at the links and the joins between disparate areas relating to land in Scotland. As Fiona stated, it would be for the land commissioners to decide how to take that on Scottish ministers. They could ask them to look at it, but ultimately it will be for the land commissioners to decide. Certainly the intention in developing the land rights and responsibilities statement that careful consideration would be given to how that statement and the objectives for land reform fit within the wider areas that are relevant to land, including development, land use, biodiversity and climate change across any matter relating to land in Scotland. It is hoped that, through the process of developing that statement, we would be able to consult and develop a good clear explanation of how those things fit together. It has been quite a central consideration looking at the links of that as the bill has been developed. Just to clarify, are you saying that it is envisaged that the statement, when it is finalised, will specifically refer to land use strategy and other policy areas? Certainly developing the statement, we are looking closely at the links between those. I could not say at this point in time pre-empting the consultation process that will need to be engaged exactly what the end product will be, but it would be part of the considerations. That was a message that came through strongly in the responses to the consultation paper, so it is certainly something that we would be taking on board. I noted the response to Dave Thomson's earlier point. Given the important part that forestry has in terms of land use and the fact that we have very important tree planting targets, surely we would want to note specifically the importance of access to expertise in the forestry? There are a number of areas across the issues relating to land reform where it will, in certain circumstances, be very important to get that expert advice. Again, the Scottish ministers had taken the decision in terms of drafting it at this stage that those areas listed provided that overarching and that where those specific and relevant expertise were needed, there would be the possibility to access them when they were required. Again, we are happy to take back any particular recommendations that come from the committee and stakeholders, and I am sure that the Scottish ministers will be happy to consider that further. Mike Russell. I will just press the point that Alex Ferguson made, because I think that it is very important. In exercising their functions, the land commissioners must have regard to the land rights and responsibility statement prepared under section 1. It would seem to me inconceivable that the land rights and responsibility statement did not, firstly, take into account land usage and all issues. It is a high-level statement about all issues in land, and secondly inconceivable that the land commissioners would then not have an involvement in considering that. So, while accepting the freedom of the commissioners to set their own work programme, under the legislation, the issue of land usage, all the land policy that the Government sets must, by this piece of legislation, surely mean that the land commissioners will be taking those forward. That is not a misunderstanding. That is correct. That is important. Dave, final point. Thanks, convener. Just one final issue for me, and that is the commission's strategic plan. The bill, as it stands just now, says that the minister has to sign that off, but there is no provision in there for wider consultation. So I just wonder if you can give us some indication of how that wider consultation, which I think would be essential, will actually be achieved. We haven't legislated specifically for consultation within the bill because it's very much our view that it will be for the land commissioners to decide how they take forward their programme of work, but that we fully anticipate that they will be open to consultation within their approach, and that they will naturally, in devising their programme for work and their strategic plan, be consulting with stakeholders. So we don't consider we need to expressly say that on the face of the bill. You don't feel that there should be a duty to consult widely, because if that's not in there, there's nothing to stop them just producing their plan from within a very restricted pool of people and organisations and putting it over to the minister. If there was a duty to consult widely on this, which would be a very simple thing to insert into the bill, then at least we would be sure that they would do that, because they could decide not to do it as commissioners I suppose. Indeed they could, but however, in order for their reports and their recommendations to be seen as credible, ultimately, naturally good stakeholder engagement makes that product credible, and it's something that the Scottish ministers and indeed the Scottish Parliament would wish to take forward. As the Scottish Government is very open to consultation, we do consider that that is very much the direction of travel for the land commissioners and what they will want to do in taking forward their work. Times change, views change, political parties change, 10 years down the line, 20 years down the line. If there's no requirement, you might have a Government and a commission who don't really want to consult, so would it not be just a little bit stronger if there was a duty for them to do it? We'll give some consideration to that. Okay, thank you. Looking at transparency of land ownership in Scotland now, Sarah Boyack is going to lead off on this one. I suspect there may be a few others. Thank you very much, convener, and welcome to the panel this morning. I'd like to ask my questions in two categories. Firstly, about the background underpinning the drafting of part 3 on the transparency of land ownership in Scotland. I want to tease out some of the questions that have been made in the submissions to us about the background of the definitions used on the face of the bill and letting us understand some of the choices in the general crafting of the bill. First, I have a very technical question about whether the definition of land includes buildings. If the principle is that there should be greater transparency about land ownership, why should knowledge of who owns land be restricted? I'm particularly interested in the logic behind the background to the decision not to make it incompetent for non-EU registered entities to register title in Scotland, but reading through the justification, it seems to be suggested that because trust could own land, it would hinder traceability and accountability. Surely, if there were EU registered companies, that would enable transparency and it would enable a paper trail. Leading on from that, it's a matter of does the Scottish Government recognise the suggestion that three quarters of a million acres of land held in Scotland are in tax havens? I'm keen to explore some of the technicalities around the choices that are made. It feels like it cuts across the ambition to be able to map ownership that everybody has signed up to. It feels like quite a big loophole, so I'm quite interested in the technical reasoning behind it. That was my first set of questions. First set of questions, right? Let's take it bit by bit. Who's going to start? What I'd like to do is just to take those one by one. If we can start with the definition of land and whether or not that includes buildings. Yes, it does. Include the buildings on the land. The second question was a matter of whether or not the Scottish Government considered it to be in the public interest that people should have knowledge about who owns land. I'm going to pass to Matt to give some of the background on that. Good morning, committee. Obviously, one of the things that the Scottish Government is bringing forward in conjunction with the Registers of Scotland is the commitment to complete the land register within 10 years. That's a big job and it's something that the Registers of Scotland are now taking forward. That's a commitment to increase the traceability of land and to ensure that all legal owners are represented in the land register and that all the land of Scotland is mapped within the land register. That's a big step in increasing the traceability of land ownership in Scotland because some land just now is currently recorded in the Registers' series in which it can be difficult to interpret. I may need some sort of legal knowledge and the land register is a lot more on that basis. It's easy to interpret. The Registers of Scotland are also leading on a task force on a new land information system for Scotland and the idea is to have a Scottish land information system that would be electronically available. That would again increase the accessibility to information about land ownership in Scotland rather than having to go through the Registers of Scotland, they would be able to be carried out online. That would again be part of a general picture of increasing land ownership. You made reference to the EU entity's proposal that was in the consultation and was made by the Land Reform Review Group. The Scottish Government recognises that there is a desire for greater transparency of accountability and traceability of land owners in Scotland when we look further into the proposal after the consultation. It became apparent that it wouldn't necessarily give the traceability and accountability that we necessarily desired. You mentioned trusts and trusts could be used to obscure land. I wouldn't deal with the complex corporate structures that can be used to hide ownership of land or obscure ownership of land and other areas as well. On a whole, we did not think that it would provide the policy objective that would increase traceability. There are sections 35 and 36 that allow regulation-making powers and we feel that they will provide traceability when it is required. I still do not really get the sense of why it would not be legitimate to ask those questions. We totally get that corporations or corporate structures exist, but there is an issue about being transparent about the ownership of land. You said that there were other areas that led you down that path. I think that I would be quite interested in knowing what they were if it was possible to provide supplementary information on that if you do not have it on your fingertips just now. There was a question about the do you recognise the statistic that 750,000 acres of land in Scotland are held in tax havens? I do not know if that figure is correct or not. I am not sure it could actually be established, but it is something that we could take away and look into. I do not know the answer for that. That is great because it kind of goes to the heart of accountability and transparency. The second question I had was about how people might actually use section 35 and exploring the role of the keeper. I suppose that it comes down to the principle of transparency as an objective. You have rightly mentioned the land registration process over the next decade and if we agree that it is a good thing to have transparency as suggested by the Scottish Government, why should knowledge of who owns land only be released if a reason for our request meets certain criteria? One of the representations that we have received is that requests should be limited to legitimate and reasonable grounds. I wonder what the Scottish Government's view on that would be. What would be the grounds? How will be that specified? What will be the role of the keeper in determining whether anyone should be able to find out that information? Should you have to be a citizen with particular interests or could any citizen in Scotland ask that question? The regulations that were made under 35 clarify that the request authority that is referred to within section 35 is not yet... there is no decision to be made on who that will be and that will be one thing that will be made and set out in the regulations when they are made. Section 35 would be open if somebody wanted to make a request for information. It's really where someone is having issues connected with an area of land. That could be an individual, it could be a community, it could be a company, it could be somebody. There's something happening on an area of land. It could be, say, the way that land is being managed that's causing and flooding or maybe issues with access a simple issue that somebody's not maintaining defences on a farm properly or on an area of ground that's letting stock trespass on to other land. It's really where the management or the use of an area of land is having some sort of issue on seeing a neighbour and the person's trying to has tried to have those issues addressed. To the land register or the register of savings to trace the legal owner the legal owner in a way is not responding to their issues or it may be a partner, it is a company that's an offshore tax haven or such like and there may be a person that sits behind that company or that trust that's actually the person that's got the decision making power over the land and how that land is being managed individual. I hope that answers your question. Just to clarify, a general in principle knowledge of who owns land just somebody wanting to know who owns land or to monitor the different categories of who owns land in Scotland that wouldn't be covered by this bill automatically. Section 36 which includes the power for the keeper to request information and that would include the keeper to request information in the category of section 3635 quite separate sections and 36 would allow you to provide the category of land and that information could be then added on to the register and section 36 also allows an application an application registration to be made to provide further information about persons that may have control over the proprietor. 35 in particular is where there's a particular issue in hand that really needs to be addressed. I'm just going to ask Kate to add a comment. In this debate this is a very complex issue and I'm going to talk about people can sometimes mean different things by information about who owns land in Scotland and it's just to clarify that Scottish ministers are completely committed to there being a complete register of ownership of land in Scotland so we're not saying for a second that it's not in the public interest for people to know who the legal owners of land are in Scotland you can already access that information through a request to the keeper of the registers of Scotland, the information is available from the land register or from the general register of savings. Through completion of the land register knowledge about legal ownership will be much clearer and much more easily accessible but legal ownership will be fully publicly available and that is at the moment and the intention is to improve that and make access to that better. What we're talking about in terms of the EU legal entities in section 35 and 36 is talking about what information should be available to a public above and beyond the legal ownership and in that case it's about looking at the information we're talking about whether that's some kind of controlling or beneficial interest over land or details about the legal proprietor and beyond what would be required to disclose in order to register their land and you have to look carefully at what that information would be used for why you need it and what the most appropriate and balanced way of gaining access to that information is well considering the interests of all the parties involved and what we have done is put forward provisions in this bill which together with the completion of the land register and the information property service we believe are the best balance to get the information that is necessary without having an unjustified interference on the interests of land owners and others. For me a few colleagues might want to come in and ask other questions. I just have to ask you first of all what account have you taken of the discussions about the fourth money laundering directive that's been passed about the moves in London of a bill that will expose who company owners actually are and whether in fact that ambition is met by the terms in which you've described access to information because it seems to me that knowing who owns the land has actually got to get back to the beneficial owners it's got to get to there to know who actually owns the land and it doesn't seem to me that the way in which this has been written is actually getting us to that point and in your process of constructing the bill in its present form have you taken that into account? People want to know who the beneficial owners of land are I don't believe in the answer you've given us that you've told us I've fully taken into consideration the EU context in this regard the fourth money laundering directive in the business enterprise and employment act obviously look at issues of money laundering and tax evasion and for those reasons both the EU and the UK have decided that there are very strong reasons for requiring the disclosure of what is referred to as controlling interests in the act and what's often referred to as beneficial interests in the money laundering directive and we have taken full consideration of those issues what we need to what Scottish ministers need to consider in the context of land reform in Scotland is the basis and rationale for which that information is necessary in order to further land reform in Scotland and those are the considerations that we have taken The Small Business Enterprise and Employment Act will in some circumstances potentially help increase transbanded land ownership in Scotland and that if land is held by a UK company then that information may be available straightforward with the EU's fourth money laundering directive because although that information is required to be held under the directive it depends on the implementation in the specific countries because there's no requirement in the directive as I understand it for that information to be made public I make the point that the Scottish Affairs Committee in London identified the fact that if trusts were to be exposed that it would take a fundamental change in UK law that's their own words When Sarah Boyack points out that there are probably 750,000 acres of land in Scotland held in tax havens you haven't answered a question about whether that has been taken into account in the drafting of the bill The issue of whether there is land that may potentially be held in off-taxing has of course been taken into consideration and again we have developed the proposals that we think are balanced and appropriate in the circumstances but I'm happy to take away all the comments of the committee and obviously the Scottish ministers will be happy to consider those further Do you recognise the 750,000 acres estimate in trusts? It would not be possible to answer that question without referring to the registers of Scotland who hold the records As my colleague Matt had mentioned it would possibly be difficult to clarify that from the information that is currently held but I couldn't answer that question without referring to colleagues and the registers but again we'll take that away and come back to the committee on writing on that issue Mike Russell I do feel that very heavy weather is being made of this I think that it's absolutely clear from the representations that the committee has received it's absolutely clear from the debate upon this that the majority people in Scotland on the national proposal in the consultation was the right proposal and that was that there should be a democratic duty for the disclosure of information and that it was undesirable for information for land to be held outside the European Union in trusts so I think that that is clear To that extent little has changed in Scotland since the 19th century is to say that the people are mightier than a lord the slogan of the Highland Land League still applies and this is a touchstone I think of land reform it seems to me that that is where we're going to end up so I do think that it's very important that as the drafting continues for amendment that that is considered by the Government because the knowledge of who owns land is vital not just for individuals who are affected by a fence or a piece of plantation it's vital for a community and it's vital for a country to recognise this bill I think that principle was accepted in the consultation I think that it needs to be thought about again and if there are issues for example that the position that the UK Government might take the advocate general might take well the people are mightier than a lord and I think that that should be remembered I think that it's very appropriate that you take forward engaging communities and decisions relating to land question next Mr Russell because it applies directly to this I do think that this section 4 which has been a little neglected in discussion of the bill is quite central to what the bill is about because if consultation is what should take place and I think all of us accept and I have to say may I praise the policy memorandum I think that there was a sensible information in there about exactly what this was about then consultation is about more than telling and what this the actual words of the bill are is really just about telling this is what the landowner is going to do and the community has therefore been told now I could take you to communities within my own constituency where consultation is about telling where decisions about what happened on that land people go and have a public meeting and saying this is what we're going to do so I think in this section it is quite important that we understand what the policy intention is and how it will be implemented now the three paragraphs that are in this four paragraphs one, two, three and four are added to by the policy memorandum can you perhaps just address what is in the rest of this in terms of what the consequences would be if those who own land do not consult how that would affect them both for charities and it's clear in terms of Oscar but more importantly for private landowners and the final point which isn't addressed in the bill and I just think we need to think about this in our own land now I could take you to somewhere where somebody has bought 12.7 square miles within the last three years without any consultation about what they are going to do with that land they have made the decision of what they are going to do with that land that seems to me contrary to the spirit of the bill so how can this operate in terms of existing landlords and particularly how can it operate in terms of people who might intend to be landlords there are three issues in turn first of all the Scottish ministers' intention is that the guidance under section 37 would be about engaging communities and the engagement goes a lot further than consultation consultation is one form of engagement although drafted for very different reasons if we look at the national standards for community engagement which is obviously set out for the public sector but can be adapted provides a useful model that clearly explains that engagement is very dependent on the circumstances and it depends on the case and the issue at point but there is a whole range of what will be considered engagement and what will be considered appropriate depending on the circumstances ranging from if you are required to do something under environmental legislation and you do not have a choice in the matter then the appropriate level engagement would be perhaps to inform communities of what was being done and why it was being done if there was a range of options for taking forward that you would be going out and saying this needs to be done but here are the options what are your views and those would be taken into consideration all the way down to co-production which would be we want to achieve a certain outcome or we think we want to achieve a certain outcome is this the outcome you agree with and how can you work with us in order to design the best way of doing that so what the guidance will intend to do is to set out clearly what is meant by engagement and set out those broad parameters while stressing that what is appropriate in the circumstances will be very much dependent on those circumstances but it is certainly not just about consultation it will be the broad full range of what is meant by engagement and as we go through the process we will hopefully be using the national standards as a helpful guide to translate engagement into the more specific context of landowners and communities on the issue of where landowners despite the guidance would not wish to or do not engage with communities I would first of all stress that there is now recognition amongst many landowners that are considerable benefits from working with their local communities and there are already many productive partnerships springing up around Scotland and we know organisations such as Scotland and the States are very supportive of this proposal and will be keen to work with us and landowners that they represent and taking this forward the intention would be that Scottish ministers would work closely with stakeholders across the private third and community sectors to develop and promote the guidance to make sure that there was collective buy-in and that there was good promotion of the importance of engagement as the guidance is developed where landowners despite the guidance do not engage with communities on land-based decisions then this can result in poorer outcomes for both landowners and communities and poorer relationships and the disadvantages of this will also be made clear that landowners including private landowners a lack of consideration of the guidance and lack of engagement could be a factor that Scottish ministers would consider as part of the evidence provided by a community body to support an application for the right to buy land to further sustainable development as it may assist in evidencing why the transfer of land to the community body or nominated third party is the only way of achieving the desired benefit to the community and this would obviously be a factor taken into consideration Scottish ministers are also exploring the ways in which a failure to engage with communities on land-based decisions might be taken into account in future decisions on the award of discretionary grants in relation to land As you have noted the case for charities is slightly different as Oscars currently have powers under the 2005 act where a charity trustee did not comply with the guidance issued by Scottish ministers and would be able to consider whether a charity trustee has complied with their duties under the 2005 act and if not whether action may be taken for misconduct so there are a range of ways in which failure to consider or comply with the guidance would be taken into consideration It's very important that there's a few digments in behind you that get embarrassed by having struggled with this on issues of wildlife crime cross compliance is extremely important in terms of ensuring that landowners if they are not prepared to operate in a sensible manner Sorry, I interrupted you That's one of the things that I think would be carefully considered as the guidance is developed The third point you'd raised was whether although this would apply to existing landowners what would be the impact on future landowners and I would say that once the guidance is developed it would be clear what was expected of landowners in Scotland and that anybody considering purchasing land in Scotland would if they have good agents would be made aware of the fact that this guidance existed and what would be expected and it is certainly hoped that that would factor into any person's considerations where they purchase land that they would have to engage with and consider the needs of the communities in deciding how to what compliance becomes an issue then then it should at least be considered and perhaps you would be good enough to think about this in drafting terms it should at least be considered that it is an element within the conditions for people purchasing land then in other words they would not have access to grants one sort another forestry grants or SRDP any other grants without adhering to a code I think Ferguson and then Graham Day Just very briefly, thank you I know that there is concern in the farming community because I have had it raised in my constituency that this might impact on everyday farm management decisions can you comment on whether or not that will be the case I would hope that the guidance would very clearly state what was expected in terms of engagement and what proportionate and reasonable levels of engagement would be in day-to-day circumstances if the day-to-day decisions of farmers were having a significant impact on the communities around them then I would imagine there would be an expectation that they would discuss that with communities it certainly isn't a mandate for communities to tell farmers what to do it is very much about just considering the impacts consulting with and considering the responses from the communities where decisions are likely to impact those decisions I will leave it at that I am sure that we will come back to that later Graham Day I have a difficult question to answer but when will the guidance even in the initial draft form be available for the committee to see or the stakeholders to see I am concerned that if we don't see that during the process of scrutiny or rather it comes towards the end or after the scrutiny process I am not sure that is entirely and I don't think it's enough to say that that will be taken care of guidance if people aren't going to get at least a feel over what the guidance is going to suggest as we go through the process Scottish ministers' intention at this point would be to develop and draft the guidance in consultation with stakeholders and to try and take as co-productive an approach as possible to developing this guidance and if that was to be done the process would likely commence after the bill has been taken through and take away the committee's concerns I accept the huge logistical challenge that lies behind this but I do think that we need more meat on the bones in terms of what the guidance might provide for We had to try to set out a bit further information on the policy memorandum around that and again I wouldn't want to pre-empt the process of consultation and producing the guidance in consultation with all the stakeholders who have an interest but I'm sure that the Scottish minister will consider what further information could be provided to the committee at this stage We can explore that with the minister's convener We will try to move on now to the right to buy land to further sustainable development Claudia Beamish is going to lead on this one Right, thank you convener and good morning to everybody convener, with your forbearance I'd simply like to ask for a point of clarification if the committee could have something in writing in relation to question 4 and the non-EU registered entities and the extent to which that partiality fed into the final decision as to whether that would be something that would be on the face of the bill it would be helpful if you could furnish that information to the committee please Can you just clarify that? I understood that if there was any any value in this part of of this going forward to the bill that it would only be partial correct me if I'm wrong but that's what I'd understood to be the case and I'd like to see through the committee with the agreement of the committee that the evidence that shows us that this isn't something that is appropriate for the Scottish Government to take forward within the bill if I misunderstood it our analysis of the specific proposal around the EU ownership or exclusion to explain the thinking that we went through and the evidence that we have That would be helpful, thank you Can we move on? Question in hand Could I ask in relation to sustainable development and also to the community right to buy issue more generally if you could explain why was it considered that an additional community right to buy procedure was necessary in addition to those already in place and that's a neutral question and how all the various right to buy mechanisms will relate to each other and I see that there's an issue around a third party possibility of right to buy as well which is obviously a new suggestion so if there could be comments on that and possibly if not all today you might be able to put that into the committee That's fine, I'm happy to answer that question There are of course a number of crucial distinctions between the existing community rights to buy and that in this proposed bill part 5 is a right to buy even where there is an unwilling seller unlike the preemptive community right to buy in part 2 of the landform Scotland 2003 but similar to the part 3 crofting right to buy which is the right to buy abandoned, neglected or detrimental land The key test in the new part 3 introduced in the community empowerment act is whether the land is abandoned, neglected or the use or management of the land is causing harm to environmental wellbeing of the community so the key test is about the condition and use of the land rather than the needs of the community There were strong messages during the passage of the community empowerment bill that although much welcomed there may still be circumstances where communities require access to land in order to meet their needs but that would not be covered by the existing rights to buy or part 3A Therefore the key test for the right to buy to further sustainable development and land in part 5 focus on the outcomes for the community rather than the condition of the land As you'd mentioned in part 5 the right to buy land for further sustainable development the community can nominate a third party purchaser who would be for example a housing association or a local business partner to buy the land and so help deliver the benefits to the community and the benefit of this arrangement is that the third parties may have access to resources and skills that would be unavailable to the community otherwise the test for consent into the application would still be met in full and they may therefore expect community and third party partners to agree legal arrangements for example setting out delivery timescales, rights, liabilities, maintenance etc but it is viewed as a significant benefit to the part 5 proposals Right, thank you The process is very similar to the existing rights to buy so in that sense we fit together and we're not expecting community bodies to have to deal with different procedures and processes for different rights to buy Right, well that's reassuring in that the need for communities to have simplicity in moving forward is exceptionally important with if this bill is going to become an act which is going to work that's just a personal view I've got three other questions within the context of sustainable development obviously that term is fundamental to the working of the bill and I know this is a very knotty problem from previous experience of other bills what definition will the Scottish Government be using of sustainable development for this purpose and I ask this because I really would like to understand this in terms of how the bill is going to work in view of the points that have been made previously about a regulation and secondary legislation why is it not on the face of the bill The reason it's not on the face of the bill is that the Scottish ministers do not consider it necessary to define sustainable development as its meaning is generally well understood and widely used in legislation it's quite acceptable certainly from the Scottish ministers point of view in drafting terms to leave sustainable development as undefined in those examples in other legislations such as section 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act and in the other rights to buy such as section 97H1B2 of the 2003 act by not providing a specific definition sustainable development is left deliberately broad and Scottish ministers and where necessary courts will be able to determine what sustainable development means in a particular case as they have in relation to other legislation there's a helpful quote which is not too long from park if you wouldn't mind me just referring to it where the Lord President says in my view the expression sustainable development is in common parlance in matters relating to the use and development of lands is an expression that would be readily understood by the legislators, the ministers and the land court an explanation of what is in general meant by sustainable development is set out in the policy memorandum accompanying the bill on page 26 and again I'll just refer to what's said that sustainable development is defined as development that is planned with appropriate regard for its longer term consequences and is geared towards assisting social and economic advancement that can lead to further opportunities and a higher quality of life for people whilst protecting the environment sustainable development requires an integrated approach to social, economic and environmental outcomes sustainable communities are more self-reliant with increasing economic independence and a better quality of life while conserving or enhancing their environment is contrasted with unsustainable communities where populations are declining, local, economic and social activities are inhibited and the natural heritage is damaged If I could just add that sustainable development is only one of the key tests that have to be met so it has to be the others that are set down in section 47. Not to look at it in isolation Yes, thank you for that I understand the arguments that you're putting forward but there is a tension having looked at this issue more than I would even choose to have done in the past that there's a tension between needing a broad definition so it can be taken forward in a way which is inclusive but also having a definition which is not risking legal challenge and I do have a concern about the whole issue of the fact that I think that the Scottish Government has shied away from using this term in the past in some instances, in some acts and having gone through the aquaculture bill and having gone through the other bills there's been that has definitely been a sense in my judgment that it is difficult to define so I do have concerns about it being left open and I understand that it's in the policy memorandum and I thank you for reading what you've read but I want to highlight that because I think it still needs a considerable amount of thought and could I also ask you when considering how the significant benefit or significant harm are to be interpreted how will consideration be given to the impact on the landowner and is that compliant with article 1, article 1 of the ECHR as asserted in the policy memorandum which is at paragraph 201 thank you the as my colleague Rachel mentioned the tests for ministers decide upon an application in 47 and there's a number of different limbs to what are termed the sustainable development conditions under that test and the significant harm to the community and the test is specifically about the significant harm and significant benefit to the community and in interpreting what that would be there's some further aid issues that ministers need to take into consideration that are set out under 4710 however in terms of the consideration of the impacts and benefits on landowners first of all just to say that the Scottish ministers have of course been careful to consider the rights and interests of all persons who may be affected in order to develop balanced and fair tests and process and Scottish ministers believe that this is what's set out in part 5 landowners' rights and the potential benefits and harms to the landowner will be considered and protected in a number of ways throughout their right to buy process including requirements for the community body to have written to the landowner to ask them to transfer the land prior to the application to give fair notice and encourage co-operation and engagement before entering into the process landowners have the right to make representations and will be invited to make representations at various points in the process to clearly explain rationales and reasonings and potential impacts on those landowners to Scottish ministers as we've already discussed there are strict tests that have to be met before Scottish ministers consent to the application including whether consenting to the application is in public interest which would require detailed consideration of the impact on all the persons affected by the transfer including the landowner if the application is consented to by Scottish ministers then the landowner would receive market value for the land and in circumstances the landowner can potentially claim for losses and costs associated with the transfer and landowners also have a right of appeal against both the Scottish ministers decision and the valuation In addition the principle of encouraging collaboration runs right through the right to buy and to aid this provision is made for mediation between communities, landowners and other parties in relation to the proposed exercise of the right to buy Finally, in making a decision on an application for a right to buy ministers will have to ensure that their decision is compatible with article 1 protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and part of this test will require ministers to be satisfied on a fair balance the benefits that will result from the transfer of land outweith the interference with the landowners article 1 protocol 1 rights Right, I think that's important to have that clarification in view of the principles of the bill and wanting to take forward where appropriate more community ownership of land in Scotland so I think it's important to understand that Before you go on to the next bit there's a couple of supplements on this one please Alex Ferguson Thank you, convener Yes, I have said I'm fairly stunned by the comment or the statement that you made that Scottish ministers don't think it's necessary to define sustainable development I say that because there's already raised by the land managing fraternity if I can call it that a great deal of concern about this section of the bill because every time this has been raised previously they have always been told by Scottish ministers that good landowners, good land managers, good farmers have nothing to fear and I think that this is going to give them something to fear if I may say so and I say that because I accept that yes there are criteria under section 47 that have to be satisfied if an application to buy is to go ahead but not one of those refers to the impact on the land now you can have the best farmer in the parish who he makes his submissions and he makes his argument he makes his impact he makes all the case to retain the land that is being sought and yet if it doesn't if it fulfills those four criteria the community seems to me under a definition of sustainable development that has been deliberately left broad in your own words and I do not see how those to tie up to give any finding to the statement because I have nothing to fear from this this to me shifts the balance particularly where you have a third party involvement away from an equitable balance that should be predominant in this bill and we will pursue that at other times I'm sure but I wish to lay that down on the record just now I would potentially just mention quickly in response that obviously one of the criteria is consideration of the public interest and then considering the public interest Scottish ministers would have to take broad consideration of a range of issues such as the importance of the agricultural sector and agricultural industry and using agricultural land for those purposes in Scotland so that such issues would be a broad part of the consideration in that test The policy memorandum at 203 to 205 anticipates the possibility of these local authorities being affected by these presumably just for clarity that means that where a community finds that a local authority ownership of land is impeding its ability to operate and is suffering significant harm it could utilise this bill rather than a community empowerment bill Am I right about that? It is that local authority land isn't precluded from part 5 we would expect and obviously one of the things Scottish ministers will have to consider is the kind of guidance necessary to support community decisions on which particular route to go down it is anticipated that the community empowerment public sector asset transfer provisions would be more appropriate but yes the part 5 ones may also apply There may be circumstances where a community body applies the right by land owned by local authority on the provision of part 5 those would be those circumstances in which the health of the community of by the local authority Okay, thanks I want to raise a specific case that has been raised with me as by way of example it might clarify what we are talking about here in terms of the community right to buy if you have a situation where a farmer has a small field on which he grows crops on a regular basis but the local community want that field for the establishment of a community woodland under the terms of the bill it is feasible that the community would be able to acquire that land I would just like to just as a broad context just remind the committee that what we are talking about here is in cases where there is significant harm which is likely to affect the community so this isn't a broad and general right it's in those quite specific instances Right so the example I have given wouldn't happen it wouldn't be possible to comment even on a hypothetical even with the detail you've provided it really would be case by case as Judy pointed out and as Rachael mentioned in the tests earlier the community would have to put forward a strong application that showed the significant benefit that was going to be delivered which identified the harm that would be caused to the community if there was not taken forward and the Scottish ministers would have to consider strongly the impacts I mean if losing that field was going to have a significant impact on that farmer's business and that is something that would have to be quite heavily in the consideration again it would be about balancing the impacts on all parties and considering those and reaching the decision so I couldn't really give it a yes or no But the answer you're giving really is in principle it could happen In principle an application could be made on those basis I couldn't state what the question was Thank you for that debate and there's a final point I think for this panel I hope It's a brief one Whether consideration was given to providing for a direct power of ministerial intervention to buy land to further sustainable development if there is no community present Obviously within the context of the four tests There was earlier consideration given to a wide range of powers to enforce changes in control over land such as through enforced leasing but the key consideration was to minimise Government intervention to what was necessary to achieve the overall aims and in this context what was looked at in the bill was encouraging better engagement and having the possibility of transfer under part 5 should no voluntary route succeed So the focus of the provisions in this bill are very much about the relationships between communities and land owners making sure that balance is right and overcoming barriers that community space in the circumstances that apply in part 5 There has been as part of this bill no detailed consideration of the types of intervention powers that I know some stakeholders have talked about where there are no existing communities that's not something that has been considered as part of this bill but obviously it might be something that would be considered in the wider land reform agenda Right, so it's not something that you would see as appropriate or is it something that you would see as appropriate to look at in view of the fact that for the future of our land in Scotland it may well have a resonance Certainly Scottish ministers are considering closely all the recommendations of the land reform review group and will consider all the evidence to this Parliament this committee as part of stage 1 Thank you very much to our witnesses for this part of the bill we're going to change over very rapidly because we have to fit in a programme that allows us to finish before Parliament starts at 2 o'clock so the next couple of teams are going to have to be very succinct in their answers and sort the members in their questions because we have a lot of an agenda to cover after the land reform as well so if we can change over just now straight away, we'll have a break after this next group but we must press on so it's you that's on Next, Graham I'd got my question sharpened up something We'll restart now Thank you for the second panel's rapid turnaround and adjoining Trudy Sharp We've got Dougie McLaren, Brian Peddy Hugh Dignan and Helen Jones and I refer members to the questions and ask Graham Day to start the first of these for panel 2 Thank you, convener, I'm conscious of time Can I ask why the bill seeks to remove the business rates exemption for shootings and not fishing, farming and forestry I'm going to ask Douglas to answer these questions Indeed, those are separate land occupations that all have separate exemptions in legislation Fishings ministers are looking at separately under the wild fisheries review and that process is on-going separately Some fishings are in the role because if the district salmon fishery board requests the assessor to make an entry then an entry can be made and that's used for the fisheries assessment at Levy at not rates so they're not rateable but like I say that's being considered separately Agriculture and forestry clearly different land occupations from shooting and deer stocking ministers are content to continue the exemption that I think is sustainable and in line with our policy priorities for agriculture and forestry clearly of all the sectors that the Scottish Government promotes only a very few targeted rating concessions so ministers are obviously content that the agriculture and forestry ones are sustainable in line with their policies and have no plans to end them Can I ask what analysis has been made of the impact that ending the current exemptions would have on rural jobs, rural businesses and the potential knock-on effects for example in terms of school roles and the viability of rural schools which are issues that have been raised with myself So we've used the information that we have clearly shootings and deer forests haven't been on evaluation roles for the last 20 years because of the exemption so we're missing a part of that evidence base we don't know the quantification of the tax base so if you don't know that it's very hard to go on to try to model impacts and implications of that we know that from what you came in minister said 20 years ago that there were around £2 million worth of rates revenue from sporting rates so what we've done is we've projected that forward in line with the overall rates revenue in Scotland in the period to say this is what we estimate the future income to be subject of course to rates relief but there's only so much that we can do clearly we've had a lot of evidence and information from stakeholders and where they've tried to quantify the impacts that's helpful but until we know the valuation of the tax base from the assessors then we cannot accurately start to model these impacts and implications and even if we were to try to do so and put for example our own predictions of what the tax base would be out there that could be very problematic come the time that the assessors start to do their own formal statutory valuation you know if the two figures differed for example so we've tried to substrate the information we know and the basis that we've made the proposal on and but as I say without the 20 years worth of valuations only so much we can do would you accept however the potential for there to be a negative impact from the move I recognise that taxes have impacts on taxpayers I think that's just a generally accepted point that's definitely not lost on us so what we try to do is kind of think through what that might look like I mean clearly the premise of valuation for rates is that the assessors try to hypothecate the rental value that a property would have and then that valuation is then taxed by the poundage rate that the Scottish ministers apply so you know there's different elements to that Okay I want to ask a series of questions by my convener which may allow a lead to colleagues coming in with supplementaries it's been suggested to the committee that collecting the tax might be difficult how would you respond to that assertion I'm not sure how it would be difficult local authorities have rating departments and statutory duties to levy and collect rates they would make up their assessment roles based on what the assessors put on the valuation roles and then issue rates bills to these properties and enforce that I apologize for using the wrong word it would be uneconomic to collect given the logistics of collecting it's set against what you may actually end up with There would be extra work for local authorities in collecting The cost of collection of all rates is estimated to be in the order of just over six million I think for rates income of approaching two and a half billion so some might say that that's quite a low cost of collection so we haven't had any direct evidence from local authorities as to what the incremental cost of this would be but we consider it to be sustainable Can I ask how much net of any relief you estimate will be raised by this move and can I also ask what would be the basis upon which relief is granted We don't know what the net revenue would be because it's obviously dependent on the valuations as I said and the spread of these valuations and how they're captured so we just don't know hence the best estimate we can give is around four million subject to rates relief What will be the basis upon which the relief is granted in practice? It will be the same eligibility criteria as for providing rates relief for all rate payers so for example small business bonus has criteria thresholds of rateable value under which different bands of properties get different rates of relief so subject to continuing legislation because the small business bonus scheme legislation currently expires at the end of this year and we need to be re-legislated for Faggot yesterday would continue of course Well indeed and many ministers have committed to continue and beyond if re-elected so the prevailing rates relief will apply to shootings and deer forests in terms of eligibility in the same way they do for other rateable properties I'll open up to colleagues First of all, Alex Ferguson and then Mike Russell Two very brief points one is that if there is, as it seems to be accepted a negative impact on rural employment it's been put to us that this would also have a consequential negative impact on some aspects of conservation more land management and that type of activity has any work been done to identify that and my second question is can you confirm that whether they're levied or not rateable value will have to be applied to virtually every non-urban acre in Scotland in order to identify those that are going to have sporting rates levied on On your first question I mean clearly we have worked with colleagues across government to consider wildlife management issues and conservation issues there's clearly a range of measures to support wildlife management and conservation I can maybe let Hugh expand in a minute so we consider the proposal for the tax very much in that context and that informs us whether we think that the tax is sustainable or not it doesn't just because it has implications doesn't of course mean that we can't tax because we tax many other things that the tax has implications for so clearly that's quite a qualitative assessment that we make at the moment in the absence of quantitative valuations but like we say rates for shootings in deer forest were in place for over 100 years so we know that broadly it works subject to some criticism and issues from rate payers so clearly we'll continue to work with rate players there'll be a stage as this goes through subject to the passage of the bill to produce and publish their draft valuations and then after seeing that the ministers will then of course take that into consideration when they set the poundage for 2017-18 which is when this is due to take effect on your point about valuing every non-urban acre what the assessors will need to consider is and well certainly what they considered in the past is that to identify shootings in deer forest was actually where there was shooting in deer stock in taking place so they obviously go out and speak to the sector and they'll speak to as they see fit to prospective rateable occupiers and identify whether and what size of volume of bag of culling is going on and then they will correspondently make entries on the roll if there's what happened in the past if there was nothing happening they didn't get a zero entry in the roll there was only entries in the roll where there was actually shooting in deer stock was actually taking place so if it's not taking place it wasn't previously valued and rated that's obviously for the assessors to interpret going forward they've got statutory functions to do this and you might want to seek their view as well okay I'm not sure if did you want to add anything about the wild west part they called the meetings I think that's right did you have anything to add to that at the moment you dig them no I don't think so okay let's move on for some more questions Mike Russell I have an objection to these proposals except in so far that there needs to be on the deer side and I think the evidence in the folder from Jamie Fletcher points up quite well what the issues are there is a quantitative and qualitative difference between deer forests and deer stocking as a sporting activity and either the culling of deer for management purposes or the killing of deer to provide meat into a market which is pretty insatiable for wild venison at the present time and in those circumstances there are elements of what takes place which are much more akin to wildlife management and proper deer management and we should not penalise those because they're absolutely essential in parts of Scotland and equally where there is a production of a meat for consumption of which the stocking is simply the means by which the killing takes place I think we have to be careful there about those issues I know Hugh is particularly capable of dealing with complex issues but they will need to be thought through carefully in terms I believe of amending this legislation so that we do not have unintended consequences in that one area and I would ask that officials consider that as the bill goes forward I'm sure perhaps you would like to see if that is already under consideration It absolutely is because as you say it's a complex issue and much of what the assessors do in all the complex I suppose in this case what they'll need to distinguish is if you're talking about what is at one end of a spectrum sporting stocking which is for the sake of argument undeniably sporting and at the end of the spectrum you might have land management culling which for example for us enterprise actually are paying either staff or contractors to undertake so it's not like they're getting a rental income from it and the transaction is the other way and one part of that is agricultural essentially a type of agricultural activity well perhaps so this is what they assess and then obviously on that spectrum there'll be some grey areas as well so it'll be the job of the assessors to unpick that and case law is quite helpful so there's been challenges in the past It's the job of the legislation to define that before the assessors unpick it I'd be very concerned about the legislation that required the assessors to interpret that usage there has to be at least a definition of what the bill means to apply rates to but the circumstances have changed since 1995 they have so shootings in deer forests have been statutory lands and heritage just dating back to the 1854 lands valuations scotland act and they haven't been defined so in practice they were interpreted until this exemption in 1995 I think our initial thinking is that it would be problematic perhaps to try and define or redefine shootings in deer forest perhaps in the face of the bill because then that might lead to interpretations or to avoidance behaviour so I want to enter a strong caveat to that if the bill is to be drafted in such a way that we're just worried about avoidance behaviours it's not the type of bill we should be involved with what I do believe we should be looking at is to make sure that those who are operating in a way which is justifiable under deer management and operating in a way in terms of deer as a resource at least there is a way of understanding that and I think certainly many of my constituents will be very worried if that was not defined I don't know if Trinny wants to add to that in terms of the bill team and the bill thinking I think other than to say that the point that Dougie was raising about distinguishing clearly between shoots and between culling and environmental and we understand that those are very different issues we will definitely take note of what the committee said today and consider whether there's anything further that we think could be done either on the face of the bill or in other explanations to accompany it I think we need to move to Sarah next Sarah Boyack I'd just like to ask a brief supplementary about the issue of both the collection of those new rates and the spending of those rates as well and just to explore a comment about the extent to which you have had discussions with local government colleagues and people in COSLA given that there's the review of local government finance on going at the moment this is obviously quite a significant change of new funds and I note that in paragraph 103 it suggested that while local authorities will collect the money that equivalent funding raised will be removed from the general revenue grant so that poses the question about has that been discussed with local government colleagues internally and in COSLA but also the issue about how the resource will be used the extent to which you intend it to be ring-fenced resource because in the same paragraph you talk about directing equivalent funding elsewhere within the Scottish Government's budget and is that intended to support land management issues, deer management issues action and wildlife crime so it's just to get a clarification about how you intend to raise those resources through local government and the cost that they will incur in that process but also how the money will be spent okay so as we said local authorities will collect the rates and local authorities keep all the rates that they collect the way that local government finance arrangements that are currently in place that are negotiated and grieved with local government is that their non-domestic rates income is budgeted for every year and sorry that's one of two parts of the components of the local government finance settlement other part being the general revenue grant and if they collect more rates revenue than they were budgeted for then the grant calculation comes down accordingly so that they get the agreed total as part of their budget settlement so that's the existing local government finance settlement stand up but this will be a new source of revenue but you are saying that all that money will go automatically to the Scottish Government well because of that arrangement any additional revenue means less grant paid out from the Scottish budget so that means that the Scottish budget benefits from the extra revenue and hence the ministers have indicated that they would direct the extra revenue to the Scottish land fund and have you had the discussion have you had the discussion oh yeah and we are engaging with the local government about the cost of collection Jim Hume anything that's left of your collection absolutely it's not a problem at all it's more important to get the answers out I'm obviously concerned that as it stands assessors would be the ones that would be left to decide assessors are probably under quite a lot of pressure to get as much income in as possible for their local authorities so I just want to make it's quite clear has there been any analysis at all regarding ending the exemption for deer management which is needed obviously for conservation and environmental reasons we all know that we've had many sessions here who have been concerned about too many deer in certain areas and the lack of the conservation and environmental culling that is needed so has there been any evaluation at all on ending deer management exemptions and what impact that will have on conservation and the environment across Scotland you're asking has there been an assessment of the effect of ending the deer forest exemption for rates on deer management more widely on the exemption on deer management widely for us or not okay so and that could go for other what you could call vermin species yes so okay so we're proposing to end the deer forest exemption and yes there is a policy consideration in terms of wider deer management and we are addressing that we are considering that there's not been an evaluation done yet that's been considered and we can only quantitatively use the figures that we have from past valuation and rating to make our kind of projection and until we know more definitively what the assessment valuations are going to be subject to the passage of the bill we can't accurately model that I think you're more talking about funds coming in or not I think we're more concerned about the environment and the fact that if you're starting to tax culling of deer for example for environmental and conservation purposes then perhaps there would be less cull and therefore more environmental damage maybe useful for us to add something here clearly you know we are very well aware of the need to maintain the current cull levels and indeed they will need to be sort of increased and intensified in some areas where there are particular focuses on deer damage and we are conscious that there is on the face of it an apparent potential for conflict of interest between taxing of deer culling and the policy objective of improving environmental protection however I think there are two things I would say about that first of all this is the idea of deer being managed for purposes other than sporting purposes as Doug has already said is something that is not new for the assessors and we don't think it's new in Scotland either it may have changed in its balance and intensity over the recent years since the rates exemption has been in place but it has for example forestry culling of deer has been in place for a long time and was in place certainly while the rates regime was that's not a new issue and we would expect that the assessors would have an understanding of that an ability to take that into account in setting the appropriate level and valuations when they come to look at deer businesses the other point I would want to make is that we think that the sort of incentives and management of deer management is probably better addressed through more focused and direct interventions such as the use of SIDP money, the use of support through SNH for ffensing initiatives or money which is being provided, we've provided for example £100,000 per year over two years to help people develop habitat management plans and deer census work to better enable them to carry out the sort of deer management plans to protect the environment so we would think that rather than try to use the tax system which I think has some sort of universal applicability for specific environmental reasons it's better to develop specific tools in the environmental field to achieve our objectives OK, thanks anyway I'd better move on to that just now in that case regarding deer management why our interim measures included in the bill rather than either introducing measures now or waiting for the 2016 review to conclude before bringing forward a more comprehensive package of measures As you rightly say convener the issue of the 2016 review is sort of crucial to this really and that as you'll know is something which was agreed with yourself and the committee following your review of deer management in 2014 so we have a position where we have agreed with yourselves and made it clear to the deer sector that we will expect to see a step change in the way that deer management is carried out in Scotland by the end of 2016 I think that clearly left us with the option of either doing nothing in this bill or perhaps bringing forward a fully developed system or indeed what we've got actually in the bill, the measures that we've got there so we looked first at the idea of a fully developed statutory system and I think there a number of reasons why we concluded that wasn't practicable I mean first of all it would be a complex and difficult system to get right especially to draft and bring into a bill that we had I think it would also be quite difficult to consult on such a system with a sector which was still working on the basis that there was support for the voluntary system at least until 2016 so that would have been quite a difficult thing to do and also I'd say on that we would hope that the review in 2016 would itself point to the direction that we think a statutory system should look like and the way that we should take that so the other alternative of having nothing in the bill was something that we considered carefully but we are conscious that we are on a journey with dear management we wanted to keep that sort of direction of travel going forward that there were measures to be in the bill and we were very conscious that if in 2016 it became apparent that more measures were needed we would have very little time between then and the 2020 biodiversity targets which we are looking to meet so we had some close consultation with SNH on what additional measures within the voluntary system might be useful that they could bring into effect at that point and help us meet the 2020-2020 targets A couple of points here I've got a kind of question about the way in which the actual assessments of to go back to Dargi McLaren we've assessed the shootings and it seems that the volume of shooting the number of beats shot are part of the assessment has there been any review of the way in which the assessment for the reintroduction of the rates would be made other than related to the number of beats shot? Well clearly we've spoken with the assessors about this just to discuss what would have to be done and they would need to go through a process of engaging fully with the industry to work out how best to do that I mean there's nothing that says well subject to anything that we're going to build there's nothing that tells them how to value the properties clearly with a hundred plus years of practice leading up to 1995 that got to a certain point where the volume of the bag was used so clearly there's a decision to be made there if that's still going to be the best way to use that to go in future but I think quite a lot of engagement and thought and consideration have to be undertaken before that point I don't think that's up to the assessors I think it's up to us to decide whether in fact we want to take into account whether the process of the last hundred years is the best way to actually treat the land that we're talking about and its use. Well of course if that's what Parliament wishes to do Parliament of course has the right to direct the assessors how to undertake their valuations they generally don't but of course they can But you know it must have been Parliament in the first place in London that decided bag approach to assessment Will that be interesting to see the chapter on verse on that because I've got the question about the saleable value of land that includes shootings on it you know are related to the number of stags which are shot on it and it's always seemed to me to be a very unmodern way of looking at the value of that land Indeed stakeholders some stakeholders do criticise it so clearly the assessors have a central task to make a best estimate of the hypothetical rent and they've got different ways and methods that they can do that they're all professional surveyors and their valuations are tested in court so clearly that's the context that they work in but the history is that that's been developed by the assessors over time the valuation method wasn't legislated for Indeed that's something for us to pursue Again convener thank you for letting me in it's on a very different part of this different aspect on this part of the bill probably referred to Hugh Dignan I think I have a real concern about this section of the bill as it would impact on the south of Scotland where deer management is a very different thing to I think the sort of deer management that we're mostly looking at in this part of the bill there are few if any deer management groups in that part of Scotland I don't say we haven't got a problem with roe deer, sicker that different species of deer but I just wonder if you can enlighten me as to how this part of the bill is going to impact in the south of Scotland particularly given the timescales involved the size of penalties that could be involved and the lack of a real deer management structure in the south of Scotland at the present time Well I think you're right that the focus of a lot of the attention has been on the red deer range in Highlands Scotland so that isn't to say that there aren't concerns about what's going on in the lowlands and there has been quite a lot of work going on as I'm sure you're aware with the development of the lowland deer network and a number of lowland deer management groups I think there are seven or eight in place right now there are issues surrounding impacts on obviously on agriculture but also on native woodlands in lowland Scotland but also crucially deer vehicle collisions and these are the sort of issues SNHR working with the lowland deer managers to develop strategies for tackling and so that is work that is on going I'm not sure that the provisions which are in this bill are designed to tackle those particular issues although they could be brought to bear if there was a need for that to do so, for example the power to for SNH to constitute a deer panel for the purposes of securing greater community engagement is something which could be brought to bear anywhere in Scotland where it was thought that there was a need to achieve that that'll do just now I think what we'll do at the moment is we'll say thank you very much to this panel we have a question about generally about common good but I think we'll put it in a letter to you which is going to be a long letter that's following on these sessions but it would be easier from time point of view since it's not as controversial as other points just now so I'd like to thank the witnesses in this panel, we'll take a five minute absolutely five minute only break immense and we're going to welcome panel 3 who are with us Billy McKenzie Fiona Buchanan Angela Morgan Andrew Campbell joining 2D Sharp welcome to you we'll just proceed as quickly as possible with our questions particularly on agricultural holdings and Alec Ferguson's going to ask the first one thank you convener I'm aware of times I'll come straight to the point if I may I'll ask you about the ECHR issues in relation to part 10 of the bill the policy memorandum gives quite a lot of detail on other parts of the bill but not a lot of detail on this part of the bill can you tell me why that is and whether you can furnish us with a greater explanation of the ECHR implications of this part I'm going to ask Andrew just to comment on ECHR yes good morning everyone I can certainly speak to the legal aspects policy memorandum of course contains most of the policy justification if it's helpful to the committee I can explain Scottish Government's approach to article 1 of protocol 1 I'm not sure whether that's something you might prefer to have in writing will it answer the question Mr Ferguson quite the policy memorandum does in fact contain information about the human rights justification for part 10 at paragraphs 408 to 42 the way in which it's laid out admittedly doesn't name check article 1 of protocol 1 directly but if one looks through those paragraphs you can see that each particular topic, each chapter in part 10 has been addressed if there are particular concerns about the justification, the policy justification given in relation to the human rights paragraphs and then I'll say my policy colleagues are in a better place to assist so you will furnish us with a commentary on I'm more than happy to provide a commentary on the Scottish Government's approach to article 1 protocol 1 on that perfect, that's what I'm looking at any effects on those, no right Jim Hume next question thank you very much and good morning to those of you who have just joined the panel yes, there's been some concerns about the policy memorandum part 296 despite previous agriculture holding Tennessee reforms, there is still an apparent lack of confidence in the sector but we've also had quite a few submissions who have stated that this provision in the bill is still causing some concern NFU stating that and predictive legislative change doesn't create favourable conditions for property and land markets letting off land as we know it land in the states are staying similar to the fact that there's a lack of confidence in the sector and therefore a lack of letting land so it would be quite interesting to hear comments from the panel regarding the lack of confidence in letting land according to a lot of the submissions due to this legislation I'll just make a comment and then pass to Billy first of all I'd just like to put on the record the aim of this section is to create a vibrant and modern tenant sector that provides a range of letting opportunities for those who want to enter and progress within agriculture to provide a fair return to both the landlord and the tenant and to allow those who want to leave the industry a route to do so that allows them a reasonable return on their investment in time labour and finances that they've put in while ensuring that the rights of the landlord are also respected Are you aware that clearly different people have had concerns about how this is going to work in practice and this is something that's of serious concern I think a lot of this is about clarification rather than actually what's planned in the legislation but I'm going to ask Billy just to expand on that Thank you There are different views on this ranging from we should take no intervention whatsoever to taking significant levels of intervention The review group was set up to look at the agricultural holding sector to see what issues they were and what proposals we could bring forward to improve the situation if that's what needed to happen On the back of those recommendations we've considered what absolutely needs to be done We believe the bill produces proposals that will have a positive impact on the sector and will continue to see letting land made available and improve the situation that is there just now There are problems within the sector that doesn't believe that taking no action would not address those problems it would just continue to have adverse impacts on individuals' lives and on the agricultural sector as a whole We believe that the proposals are in the bill do provide the appropriate balance between ensuring there's fairness the rights and responsibilities of both parties are addressed and the agricultural sector continues to be an important part of rural Scotland Okay That's fine Okay, Mike It's only tangentially connected but very briefly It seems to me that in the complexities of this we should be listening a little bit more to some of the people who have the experience of the sector, some of whom have some quite imaginative ideas I just want to raise two of them One is the idea that those who have had tenancies for a very long time meaning 50, 100, 150 years in their families assisted in some way to move from tenancy to ownership because they have essentially created and sustained that endeavour and I think that that is something that we will need to look at There are a surprising number of tenants who of course have had a farm in the family for a very long period of time and I don't think that we are recognising that enough so that's one but the second one is a specific change I just ask for consideration in the one of the submissions we've had from Alistair MacDonald and it relates to the issue of the small landowners acts and the way in which the transfer of small landholdings into crofting tenure which was proposed in a legislation that I was involved in has not actually produced the results that it was meant to produce and there are difficulties in security of tenure and as a result of which it seems to me that whilst we're doing this we should tidy up some of those things that haven't worked and also looked at new things which might work OK, I'll come in a couple of those points my colleagues may want to add some to the detail in terms of long tenancies converting into ownership that was one of the things that the review group considered it was not considered to be an appropriate action to take if we're going to continue to have a vibrant tenancy sector all that would do was send a message to the landowners that would lead to business decisions where tenanting land was no longer made available we need to try and get the balance right so that tenant land does continue to be made available but at the same time the rights of the tenant are improved in terms of the situation that is there just now we believe that the proposals do get that balance right so that tenant land does continue to be made available but there are options and opportunities for the tenanting sector to own their land convert their land and that's appropriate under certain circumstances where there's harm being created to them etc so we believe that the balance on that is correct obviously we'll listen to the parliamentary process the Scottish Government will respond to that but the bill puts forward the proposals that we believe creates the right balance in terms of small land holdings we are looking at that issue the Scottish Government is continuing to consider that we will be doing some research on that Fiona, I don't know if you want to add some more detail to this OK, at the end of the final group's report we knew there was around 157 small land holding acts who had indicated on the agricultural senses they were a small land holding we surveyed all of them we had a 74 per cent response rate to the initial survey basically asking for confirmation of people thought they had a small land holding or if they had another tenancy type and what the main issues they felt were for them currently analysing those responses with the intention of doing more research in that area the initial survey was just to get a handle on the locations and if our figures are correct now we can share with you a map with the figures as they were before we analysed them in relation to the spread of small land holdings because the key point for us is there are small land holdings spread across the whole country if the figures are correct not primarily just in the crofting areas so whatever we do for small land holdings we need to make it fair and equitable for parties either side of the crofting division lines can I just relate both of those answers to the issue of confidence because I think that they have perhaps almost unwittingly reflected on the issue of confidence it seems to me that we need this piece of legislation frankly to settle the issues for a period of time because landowners say to me that the lack of confidence comes from the expectation that every piece of legislation will have a succeeding piece of legislation and so it will go on so if we are going to get this right I think that we should have a strong, clear and radical piece of legislation that says things have changed if I were one of the small landowners I'd be really worried by what I've heard because it seems to me that we're saying well we'll look at that later on and we can't do that we have to have because the decision is to put the agricultural tennis issues into this bill we have to have a conclusion to this issue so in the small land owner holding this issue we have to have a conclusion on the issue I think that it would be quite wrong to allow this piece of legislation to go past without happening on the issue of tenancies that have been a long period we have to have a resolution on the issue and I think that failing to recognise the need for a conclusion to this debate at this stage will not help either side and will not increase confidence so whatever we do we have to have clear solutions that are going to last and I'm concerned by both of those answers with respect that that is not yet the view that's being taken I understand the point being made we do believe that the proposals do provide the correct balance to provide the solution that we want to create a vibrant dynamic tenancy sector, tenancy land still made available new entrants getting into the sector agricultural production still producing the Scottish Government believes that this creates a right balance the review group did produce a very balanced set of principles comprehensive that the one, their precision was everything had to be done at the same time to produce all of those solutions to the appropriate extent we prioritised the Scottish Government prioritised what was within the report to ensure that actions were taken as speedily as possible and the best of situations that are happening right now the other issues that we believed had to give we had to give more time to will be considered in the longer term my I think the very strong view of the sector whichever side you are on on land reform and Mr there are people in this committee I don't agree with on land reform whatever side you're on needs to see a conclusion to this issue so I think that the view that will come from this committee I suspect that the line needs to be drawn in my view strongly and radically in terms of change but we have to draw that line will it definitely take account obviously of what we're hearing today and quite appreciate and share the wish for confidence within the sector it's a fact that since two parliaments ago we raised the question of small landholders at that stage and tried to take remedial action through the crofting route and indeed it has been attempted and in some cases blocked by the use of the land court and unnecessarily complex delaying tactics in some cases if that's the case there must be other people who may be suffering the same problems so that's why Mike Russell makes the points he does because I remember visiting small holdings with that view when Sarah Boyack was the convener of this committee so it is something we would underline did you have another question Jim that's fine so we move on to modern limited duration tenancies and Sarah Boyack thank you very much convener I really want to continue that discussion we've had because I think we totally understand and support the principle of having a sustainable tenanted sector particularly for new entrants it's absolutely crucial and my question really is about what is being proposed in terms of the modern limited duration tenancies and limited duration tenancies and I'd be really quite keen for you to spell it out to us in detail exactly what the principle differences are and what the benefits are that you see the Scottish Tenant Farming Association have said that from their perspective this is a community to rebalance the relationship between landlord and tenant and I think it picks up the point that Mike Russell made about every free years we have a slightly different tweak to the tenancy that is available and you've got the tension with being very specific and the suggestion that you'd have a totally open contract model so I think it would be quite good for you to put on the record the specific benefits of the MLDT and really say to what extent you think that is a long-term solution as opposed to what we're doing in this bill and in a couple of years there'll be another one coming along so it's a bit about the sustainability of the proposal. I'm going to ask Fiona just to respond to those points. Just to put it into context the amount of rented land in Scotland has declined from 30 to 23% over the last 30 years although recently the total area of rented land has remained broadly constant. There is a move to seasonal letting so that's annual grasslets annual cropping lets with no degree of support for the tenant farmer within those arrangements because it's quite limited in relation to what they can and can't plan for in their business planning. The MLDTs the difference between the MLDTs and the current LDTs the key points are the review group for a letting system that provided more flexibility than the current LDTs which is why they proposed and the Scottish Government has supported the MLDT proposal which will be a 10-year minimum term of tenancy except for new entrants where there will be an ability for a break clause for new entrants to end the tenancy so to give a new entrant the flexibility if they feel the business isn't panning out their relationship with the landlord is not panning out they will have the ability to end that tenancy the landlord will only have the ability to end that tenancy at the five-year break clause in relation to new entrants where the new entrant is failing on the rules of good husbandry so they've got a much stronger position as a new entrant for the rest of the sector going into an MLDT will also provide you with more flexibility about the rental arrangements and the purposes of the lease there is slightly more flexibility about the fixed equipment because we made previous legislative changes through past bills where we have we tried to get everybody onto the same playing field in relation to schedules fixed equipment and get them all operating the same way at the start of leases in practicality that's still not working the way it could be so the new provisions enable a bit more flex in that regard so if you want to enter we are giving you the opportunity to do that through the provisions so for the sector they had asked the review group for more flex and that's where the review group reached as a position there's no maximum term on an MLDT in the same as an LDT at the moment some of them last for over 20 years and it depends on the individual circumstances of both parties at the moment there is no tacit relocation in the MLDT proposed now we know some tenant farming stakeholders have some concerns about that so we're willing to listen to their views around that area in relation to you mentioned freedom of contract the current agricultural holding legislation across the board provides balance and protection for tenant farmers and their landlords freedom contract does currently exist but not within that formal relationship and in the legislative framework that's provided for however there is scope within the current agricultural holdings legislation at present for parties to take decisions between themselves to contract out of certain elements of their lease provisions now unfortunately we're not party to the details of those because that's a separate private contractual arrangement between the parties concerned and the review group at the time when they considered the proposals that came forward about freedom of contract did have concern and they highlighted this in section 9 in their final report that the current circumstances in the agricultural sector were not ready to support a freedom of contract approach because the balance between the tenant and the landlord was not as equitable as it could be I think that's a really helpful clarification the only thing that occurred to me at the end was there are now a complex range of different tenancies and I wonder if it would be helpful to have a kind of note saying what they are intended to work and that will help us when we come to deciding whether or not amendments might be appropriate we'd be happy to provide that we'll include it in our long letter it's just got longest indeed that's good thank you the conversion of 1991 tenancies to MLDTs is our next focus Alec Ferguson and the convener's introduction states very simply exactly what that is and I think that's an issue here I want to explore a little bit which relates back to the point that Mike Russell made and was amplified by Sarah Boyack because my question really is why the conversion of 1991 act 10 to MLDTs is being left to subsequent regulation rather than being put on the face of the bill and the reason I ask that and the reason I think this is important is it comes back to this aspect of security and confidence that this is it and I do not agree with Mike Russell about but I do agree that we need to at the end of this process land owners in particular those who are in a position to let land need to feel that this is it that they have confidence that what we pass through this Parliament is it for the foreseeable future so that we can have that vibrant tenant sector that every one of us around this table wants to see I personally have reservations that this bill will achieve that but that's for later on so the basis of my question really is why the conversion and the details of all of that are being left to the next Parliament basically okay the reason that we've put down the regulation making power is due to two things first of all we believe the proposal to allow conversion is correct the review groups findings were thorough on that and we believe that it's the correct thing to do Scottish Government believes that it's the correct thing to do secondly there are a wide range of options proposals, views on where what direction we should go in terms of conversion from 15 years, 25 years all the way up to 99 years some as far as fuel assignation instead of conversion there's pros and cons with all of them there's options with all of them we believe that it's more appropriate to take one the time to work with stakeholders on all of this to develop the appropriate options so that we get the right impact and it is a settled solution but two, because of the wide range of options and the different views and pros and cons of each it is appropriate to allow ourselves the opportunity to have a quick tweak if it is proven that the original solution doesn't work as well as what it was thought that can sometimes happen and leaving that type of detail to secondary legislation and allowing that flexibility going forward is believed to be the appropriate way to deal with this that's not a sector of the issue we'll listen to the Parliament on that the debate will happen and Scottish Government will respond to that debate but that is the reason why we've gone for that solution at this point in time and we are working with stakeholders to ensure that the solution brought forward is the correct one and is as final as we can possibly guarantee that to be in a very complex area with wide-ranging opinions on what to do I take your answer at face value and I'm glad to hear you're still working on it I would just make the point that three members of this committee now all from different parties have raised the importance of providing reassurance to all the stakeholders across the sector and I hope we will take that with you and continue to work on the bill because I really do think it's fundamental I would just like to confirm that we absolutely will do that we've worked very closely with stakeholders and we will continue to do so in taking this bill forward To rent reviews Claudia Beamish Good morning to those of you that haven't seen in the other panels I'd like to add my voice to those who make that plea that same plea for the stability of the world and in that spirit I turn to the issue of rent reviews and obviously this has been a very complex and taxing issue for the whole of the agricultural sector and not long before I was involved but I know that in committee since I've been here it's been through the tenant farmers forum and now through the agricultural holdings review group and in section 82 of the bill there is quite detailed there are quite detailed clauses of where we're going with the rent review and for the record for those who are clear on this it is about the productive capacity of the land I do have concerns that there will again be detailed regulation which doesn't even on top of all this detail in here that doesn't perhaps send the message that it is a settled decision when there have been so many difficulties that have forced both parties into the land court in the past and I wonder if it's really the way forward that there should be consideration of more than on the face of the bill and why I'm negative rather than an affirmative procedure if indeed you do go down the road of there being of course there will be further regulation but you know of that being the case last Billy to cover most of the policy points and then Andrew might want to comment on the negative procedure that we will be seeing the what used to be called subordinate legislation committee in a couple of weeks time okay thank you okay in terms of productive capacity and what is in the bill and why regulations it's very similar to the conversion point that productive capacity was the agreed solution from the review group we believe that is appropriate it's already based on practice in England similar practice not identical so we believe it is the right way to go forward but what is crucial is that we work with stakeholders on the detail the experts within the industry that process has already begun we've had two meetings with all the experts and all the stakeholder bodies to develop the two crucial aspects several crucial aspects is the definition of productive capacity there's the other factors that you might want to take account of in that there's a determination of fair rent and there's the prices that you may want to take account of when assessing the productive output the value of the productive output all of that is incredibly complex we've discussed it for six hours so far and we are nearing a solution with the experts and we're more than happy to provide information on the back of those meetings there are papers that have been produced over the next few weeks we should reach a settled opinion on what those factors could be the definition of all those factors that we could share with the committee to age our understanding because it is incredibly technical very detailed that's why we've left it to the regulations to allow the flexibility even more so the conversion the argument applies to productive capacity and all the other factors you have to take account of that you need to allow the flexibility to tweak because it's putting in places practices that assessors, the values are then going to go out and what we're farmers, landowners to put in place so as I said we are more than happy to provide the detail from the back of those meetings if I've already shared a stakeholder stakeholder is helping to shape all the material that's coming forward thank you and would you envisage that process would have one of its aims would be to give reassurance to the Scottish land and estate concern that there hasn't been in their view a Scottish Government impact assessment or analysis of where this new form of productive capacity will lead in terms of rents in terms of the Scottish land and estates they have concerns that we're going in the wrong direction that's one opinion there are views that say we are going in the right direction so I think we will not completely satisfy that what they are satisfied is that they are a full part of shaping the tool that is going to be delivered at the end of the process so they may not agree that we should produce the tool but they are agreeing that they are going to be a part of the process to agree what that tool should be and could you give us any view which I suspect you can't but I'm going to ask the question anyway as to whether this new form of rent review taking into account unproductive capacity is likely to put rents up or down that is impossible for anyone to say again there are a wide range of views but there are different views from different sectors as I understand it so has there been any assessment of where that might be going at this point in time there's been consideration by the review group there's been reference to what happened in England it's too uncertain there's too many different factors that feed into this the price levels in future agricultural produce is one factor that is completely unknown that will feed into the productive capacity and what the rent will be there's individual business decisions that will feed into what the individual rents will be it is too uncertain an area what this will do is increase the transparency within the process so that people can have an informed debate on what the rent should be rather than what many say is a mystical non-transparent process just now kindly give us some information about what the advantages of it are from the perception of having looked at the English system as a committee I think it would be helpful if we could see something briefly about that we could provide that along with all the other information that we're providing could I just ask if you're doing this on the basis of modelling different sorts of potential rents for extensive sheep farms for intensive arable etc etc how you're proceeding that is intention once we have a proposal that we believe defines productive capacity takes account of all the other factors etc the intention is to go out and test it on a wide range of farms and we already have volunteers to allow us to do that and the failures are going to help us with that process thank you very much ok we'll move on to succession and assignation to Angus MacDonald thank you with regard to sections 84 and 87 of the bill section 84 amends section 10a of the 91 act to widen the classes of family member to whom the 91 act tenancies could be assigned and section 87 6 to amend section 11 of the 91 act to widen the classes of family member to whom the 91 act tenancy could be bequeathed so the bill substantially widens the potential of successors and the NFUS in their submission broadly welcome to move is stating that the policy aim is stating that if the policy aim is to extend the life span of secure tenancies then the proposals in the bill will aid this however the safety policy aim is to address unfairness of death out of turn or the inability of direct family to take over a business I'm going to ask Fiona to comment in a moment but the aim behind this is to encourage tenants and to enable tenants to go wider than what's required so can you explain what the policy intention is of this part of the bill is it to extend the life span of secure tenancies or is it to address unfairness of death out of turn or the inability of direct family tenants and to enable tenants to retire and move on at a time that they deem appropriate in order to release land to younger tenants and ensure that land continues in productive agricultural use so that's the broad position that we were coming at this from the particular circumstances that the NFUS refer to would be two of the categories that might arise where this might apply In addition the provisions modernise the class of successor to reflect modern family structures and bring the provisions into line providing the same rights for succession by bequest transfer by an executor or assignation as I'm sure you're aware modern family structures have changed quite considerably in recent years and this impact also applies equally to farming families the current legislation can have discriminatory consequences at present by not providing a spouse with the same equal rights as their partner upon the death of the partner it also doesn't provide fairness to the sibling who is the partner of the business upon that person's death because tenancies are normally in the name of an aimed individual as opposed to a company name so if you are the partner in that company and your brother or sister dies you have no guarantees of being able to take on the tenancies so your farming business would end In our research in 2014 in the tenant farming survey we had a response rate of 3,095 to that survey 20 per cent of respondents had a family member who wanted to succeed the tenancy but who currently fall out with the current class of eligible successor and over half of those individuals the person to be a sibling while a third said it was going to be a niece or a nephew the provisions also enabled us to address issues of death out of turn where unfortunately somebody dies and the members of the family are perhaps too young to take on the tenancy at that point of time so that family farm would then fall out of agricultural tenancy the provisions would enable it to go back up the family tree and across and along and down to provide protection for the family farm and enable a continuation of agricultural tenancies OK, I think of all that just for clarification was consideration given to allowing open non-family assignation of the 91 act tenancies in relation to that the agricultural holding review group considered this proposal and concluded within section 7 of their final report that the change would create significantly long-term inflexibility within the agricultural sector for 1991 tenancies and could reduce the confidence of landlords to make land available in the future thus defeating the purpose of the objective of a viable tenative farming sector they also concluded the public interest case for such a change had not been made to them instead they recommended to the Scottish Government that we consider conversion which as Billy's explained we're currently exploring as the alternative solution to provide inflexibility to adapt to more modern farming I know some stakeholders have raised concern about they would like it restricted to somebody involved in the agricultural business but because of modernisation of Scottish agriculture if you are not a direct family member who can work on that particular farm and you want farm you'll have to go off farm to do that so if you limit it to those directly involved you would then end up in arguments about your brother who had to go off there wasn't enough to support to farmers on the farm so it's quite important that it's flexible enough to adapt to modern farming and be fit for the future now Alec Ferguson and then Dave Thomson thanks convener I think I would have to say I would argue that if one is going to address modern farming and farming changes all the time there also needs to be flexibility within the system to allow holdings to be reconfigured when they become vacant in order to make adjustments to suit different farming techniques and I don't think that that is helped by the assignation proposals here but my question I've got two very brief questions one if the intention as you say rightly is to achieve greater churn within the sector what are the ways of looking at that because I think there are other ways that that could have been achieved necessarily without a straight assignation proposal my other question is is it envisaged and I probably should know this but don't forgive me is it envisaged that the landlord will have a right to take on an assignation at a value when it comes up obviously I'd like to ask my colleague Angela Morgan to talk about what we've done in relation to other opportunities for new entrants with the assignation proposals it is hoped that this will open up new opportunities for new entrants but there are also other aspects of the bill and we've spoken about this earlier in relation to the MLDTs we think that the break laws after five years will lead to an increase in land because it will make landowners more confident in those inexperienced farmers the Scottish Government is also looking at farming opportunities so there are other elements that we are looking at in terms of new entrants so it's not just the assignation proposals but that's part of it I'm grateful for that but my question wasn't totally related just to new entrants it won't only be new entrants that take on assignations it will be farmers sons, nephews all sorts of others who may well and probably should be involved in farming already so a new classified new entrants is a bit open to interpretation like much of this bill seems to be but I'm sure we can drill down into that later could you address the second point about whether a landowner will have a right of taking on an assign lease on the second point I'd like to come back to you on that and writing because it's quite technically complicated and there are lots of provisions relating to that and interlink with the 2003 act as the provisions are currently drafted in the bill no that would be fine if you would thank you Dave Thompson welcome to the new members of the panel just to tease out a wee bit more the open assignation was consideration given to the fact that open assignation to anyone would actually simplify the situation and give greater certainty because then people would know absolutely that that tenancy was a tenancy that could go to anyone so that would be absolutely certain everyone would know where they stood and it would allow for a flexibility for the tenants at the moment these secure tenants and this is what we're talking about which you're not going to get otherwise to the same extent if you leave it to the family member situation and I can understand some of the arguments as to why you would do that then inevitably there's going to be a continuing reduction in the number of tenants over time maybe at a slower pace than we've seen in recent times so I just wonder if you could elaborate a wee bit more on that cover that there's already a reduction in tenants in land as you've heard so tenants in land has reduced significantly over a fairly short period of time if the Scottish Government legislated for fuel assignation so to keep perpetual tenancies there's a fairly sure result that landlords would no longer make any more tenancy than land above we're talking about secure 1991 tenancies and the current road we're going down you've just said there's been a big reduction in recent times this is going to allow for continuing reduction, it's not going to lead to any new ones being established and different letting vehicles I haven't heard anyone arguing that other letting vehicles SLDTs, modern tenancies or whatever would infer any rights in the long term as such the 1991 tenancies which are a very specific group of tenants that we're talking about here so I'm not sure I accept the premise that it would continue because it would give absolute certainty and if it was clear around the table everybody was agreeing that this is something to deal with those tenancies and there was absolutely no intention that any other tenancies would be picked up by this would that not give the certainty that we're looking for? That is a view that some hold is of the view group and the consideration that we've given to that Scottish Government is trying to maintain confidence within the letting sector as a whole and landlords will base their business decisions from what they've told the view group and the view group understood that on what is happening to the letting sector as a whole so if we decrease their confidence if we increase their concern that their business choices are going to continually be curtailed then we will we could face a situation where tenancy land is no longer made available and that would be a significant problem for Scottish agriculture because we want to ensure there's a range of opportunities for new entrants and those progressing up the ladder so it's not just about new entrants we have to get the balance between the rights and responsibilities of the landlord and the rights and responsibilities of the tenant correct throughout all aspects of this bill there are differing opinions on whether we've achieved that or not Scottish Government believes that this bill does achieve that and the appropriate way to ensure that we get the impact that the Scottish agriculture needs just a one quick follow on convener the range of family members that can take over tenancies has been increased pretty massively I suppose that you could say it's only a small step to have open assignation so why would the current proposals lead to less lending by landlords but open assignation wouldn't given that there's not a big degree of difference between the range of people who will be able to I couldn't define the degree of difference to be honest there is a difference and it would be a strong message that's stronger than what we believe assignation succession provides we believe that's an improvement in terms of the current situation but we don't believe that it's appropriate to go as far as full assignation I'm going to pause here because I don't know if Andrew wanted to come in so it's only a matter of degree really I'm not sure I would agree with your conclusions but it's something that we can obviously deal with as the bill moves through the process thanks Steve Mike Russell I mean the more I hear of this and the more I read these submissions and the more I talk to people I think that nobody really believes that this will settle the matter and that's the real problem that I think we're going to have to confront as this bill goes through and as the process of amendment takes place because if it is true and it may well be true that the lack of confidence will grow the wider there is assignation. The logic of that is to return to a very narrow situation in which assignation is very restricted but in terms of the health of rural communities the health of families the issue of families involved the other logic in that is that we should be much wider in our assignation and indeed eventually you go from family assignation to what David Thompson has referred to as open assignation with a fit and proper person test which I think is essential and with the possibility of assignation at value to landlords which is something that we haven't yet discussed but which is there then you might be able to construct a situation which was stable but I'm not sure you will construct a situation that is stable by simply making incremental changes on both sides and hoping that somebody is going to end up happy that doesn't seem to me to be a recommendation for progress I'm not asking for a comment on it that we have a real conundrum in here which we are going to have to address could I briefly comment nevertheless to say that as Billy's described it is a balance that we've put into the bill at the moment it will be very interesting as the committee takes evidence on whether or not that balance appears to be the right one with the differing views or whether a different balance seems to be right but what we have done here is attempt to take account of the varying views and what we're hearing the representations that we've heard and provide something that we hope provides an improvement for tenants whilst also giving confidence to the landlords but I'm no doubt you'll be wanting to take evidence from the different parties on this I know that you can have everything all the time and I think that the question here is can you have continued or increased confidence whilst respecting the rights of tenants and the human rights of those who are involved and the health of communities and I think that's the solution we will have to come to certainly at present moment I think the rights of tenants and the health of communities weighs more heavily with me that being said I think we'll move on to the question of Wego Thank you Cibira and I'll be as brief as I can I wonder if you could explain the rationale for the bill providing for a two-year period for serving an amnesty notice as opposed to the three-year suggested by the agricultural holdings legislation review group and the thinking by not including in the bill an updated list of eligible improvements to reference and reflect modern circumstances when the list as it stands was actually compiled more than 70 years ago and I'm going to ask Angela to deal with these points For the majority of cases it is anticipated that two years will be sufficient to resolve the issues the sooner parties can reach clarification on this matter the better obviously for some individuals the final length of the amnesty period will go beyond the two years if they apply to the long court towards the end of the two-year period we're listening to stakeholders' views however we will carefully consider all the evidence gathered but at the moment we think that two years should be sufficient to resolve the issues in relation to the schedule of fixed of improvements we are aware that this is quite outdated but we are working with the industry bodies to come up with a more modernised suitable list and that's something we are progressing we will get there we have that undertaking that's good to have on the record thank you we're going to conclude there just now I'd like to thank you all for your contributions the committee is going to write to you after the meeting with a list of additional and follow-up questions as you know and we will call a short suspension so as to change over witnesses thank you agenda item 3 is a review of veterinary disease surveillance centres and it's to take evidence on the review of veterinary disease surveillance centres from the Scottish Rural University College and our witnesses today are from the commercial division SAC Consulting and welcome Mike Weinberg the managing director of SAC Consulting and Brian Hosey the head of SAC Consulting vet services and we will have a short opening statement from Mike Weinberg and then we will proceed to some questions so welcome gentlemen look forward to what you have to say thank you very much can I just say that we are very pleased to have this opportunity to share our position with you and if I can just then go through this opening statement which is just to say that you'll be aware that the stakeholder consultation ran from the 2nd of June to the 10th of July and we have considered the responses very thoroughly that we received to that and some arising work is still on going this process inevitably results in a great deal of uncertainty for staff particularly those at the affected sites no decisions have yet been concluded with regard to our next steps and therefore no announcements have been made procedurally once we have reached the decision on the next steps our staff and the unions would be the first to be made aware and a formal staff consultation would then be initiated convener may I therefore respectfully request that committee members bear in mind this in mind given the public nature of this hearing I just now like to outline the SOUC's role in the decision making process on animal disease surveillance SOUC through its commercial division SAC Consulting delivers veterinary surveillance and public good advisory services under a memorandum of understanding with Scottish Government following a recommendation from the canad report the Scottish Government established an independent strategic management board to advise on the future of veterinary disease surveillance in Scotland and the three independent members of that SMB were appointed by the Cabinet Secretary and the SMB is chaired by the Chief Veterinary Officer of Scotland SAC Consulting has considerable technical expertise in the area of animal disease surveillance and as the main operational protagonist SAC Consulting works with and through the strategic management board on matters affecting the strategic direction of disease surveillance in Scotland and we've been doing this for the last three and a half years in terms of our memorandum of understanding with Scottish Government there are areas where SAC Consulting is required to obtain specific permissions in order to proceed just a few words on disease surveillance itself I just outlined that there are basically two areas, broad areas of disease surveillance the majority of our activities at our eight disease surveillance centres across Scotland involve vets, farmers, crofters others submitting carcasses and other specimens to our laboratory facilities as part of what's termed passive surveillance and this relies on the initiative being taken by the individual vet, farmer to submit that material to us so passive surveillance on the one hand active surveillance on the other is where the initiative is taken perhaps by us, perhaps by others to actively investigate what is believed to be a disease trend this might be on the basis of information that's become apparent on the basis of data available to them etc so just to highlight those two differences passive versus active surveillance and perhaps to emphasise that we have ambitions to use both forms of the surveillance more closely as we go forward and we'd be happy to talk about that the other point I wanted to mention was that disease surveillance is such around the world has been receiving attention in terms of the way that it is carried out and specifically in Scotland I should make you aware that the disease surveillance infrastructure dates back to the 60s and 70s in many cases since when of course the structure of farming has changed very significantly livestock numbers have by and large decreased significantly and furthermore government approaches to public funding not just in Scotland but in other parts of the world as well significantly too so there's now a need to modernise our approach to disease surveillance in order to deliver a high quality a high quality output and the best value for money for the taxpayer and indeed this was recognised by the canad report when they published in 2011 we need to make better use of passive and active surveillance we need to ensure that the widest and best use is made of the knowledge and skills of the broader veterinary and pharma communities and we believe that we should be making better use of modern technology in order to join up this information and coordinate it better so it was against this backdrop and more recently the acute pressure of budgetary cuts that SOUC was prompted to move to a stakeholder consultation on the 2nd of June this year which was in fact one day after I started this job with SAC Consulting one final introductory point which I hope helps as a point of clarity SOUC has the following operations based at Drummond Hill in Invernais the first one is a disease surveillance centre which provides a post mortem facility that is based on medical vets and farmers the second one is a laboratory facility which will then test the specimens that arise from those post mortems or perhaps other samples that have been submitted from vets and farmers there's also a marine mammal strandings team that is based there fourthly an epidemiology team and fifthly a farm business consultancy office so five separate groups a total of 49 members of staff work at the site 15 of those involved in the disease surveillance centre and the marine strandings team and 34 in the epidemiology team and farm business consulting SOUC concluded to support the University of the Highlands and Island Science Park in Invernais by transferring the Epidemiology and Farm Business Services consultancy team to the new campus when that opens in the first quarter of next year but the disease surveillance centre was not included in that move as we were still at that point in discussion with the SNB about the future of disease surveillance across Scotland I hope that helps just to set the scene indeed thank you initially our questions were about you know basically you've told us why disease surveillance in Scotland is important and how the DSCs relate to the broader issues but in the circumstances you've talked about having eight centres in the country and you've said that you want to rationalise these I think we're going to get on to some of the details of just exactly how you relate to some of the different reviews that have been done and so on but in terms of the Invernais centre one of the points was that it's there to support crofting communities and the work of the Outbreak Committee of NHS Highland can you tell us how that works or what level of work is involved in that thank you the principal reason that we have our eight disease surveillance centres around Scotland is to engage with the local livestock farming enterprises and their veterinary practitioners we operate through the veterinary practitioners we're consultants to the private vets in the field and we're to undertake our disease surveillance role on behalf of the Government for which we get Government funding we're required to receive submissions coming in and the most valuable submissions that we receive are of course postmortems because that allows us to get down to the nuts and bolts the details of why an animal is dyed or failed to thrive and it's as looking at this material in depth that gives us the opportunity to monitor disease trends and to look out for new or re-emerging diseases and we've got a good record on that so over the years we've picked up things like most recently we've had Schmalenburg virus which we may be recalling deformities in calves and lambs and we've had the beading calf syndrome before that now with respect to individual sites and you mentioned Inverness it's important that our vets engage with the community and ensure that we get a good supply of material in and in discussions with the strategic management board with whom we've been in close dialogue over the past nearly four, three and a half years we've recognised that postmortem submissions is the main determinant as to why a centre should be retained and what we need to do there and unfortunately in Inverness we've recognised there that we're not getting the submissions of postmortems that we would really be looking for it's at the bottom of our of our league table if we want to use such a term you know less than Thursday or less than many of our other all of our other sites we're seeing about 240 to 250 postmortem submissions across cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry, game birds in a year and it's that factor that we've said right we need to be thinking is there a better way of dealing with the the service that we're actually delivering for the area and that's where we've engaged when if I could use in contrast if we look at cattle submissions we're looking at our centres across the piece dealing with something like 1300 or 1400 cattle diagnostic submissions a year postmortem diagnostic submissions a year only 80 odd of them are coming in to Inverness so that's the kind of driver that we need to be looking at and that's where we've engaged in the consultation trying to open up opportunities other opportunities for delivering services but you've said nothing about serving the Crofting Communities or working with the Outbreak Committee of NHS Highland well with regard to the Crofting Communities the veterinary practitioners are supported to deliver private veterinary are supported through the Highlands Islands Veterinary Services Scheme Rhyda Scott Park has a leading role in managing that scheme and she of course is on the strategic management board so we do have that engagement there but we're talking about the fact that the private vets don't want to take on a larger job of doing postmortems well that's what they've said and it's unfortunate compared to other parts of the country they've closed their minds to that it would be nice for them to have perhaps seen the opportunity to help their business but we will have to go back and reconsider on that Mr Convenier without doubt and that's one of the feedbacks that we got from the consultation but we will have to engage in a new way with this area because as I say if we look at any measures be it the number of holdings in the area or the price stock numbers if you look at those ratios to the numbers of postmortems we're getting it's at the Invernesses just not getting the submissions in I think we'll have a look at that in a little more detail an aspect of this Graham Day is now in referring the 240 to 250 postmortems a year that you deal with you reference game birds for example but I wonder do you in any way deal with life crime raptor poisonings that sort of thing and if you do are you not seeing an upsurge in the numbers of they are yes we do support various people in carrying out postmortems forensic postmortems phrenic pathology across not just raptors but wild mammals as well and that is supported financially by our activities with the Scottish Government we're seeing roughly 200 odd wild bird carcasses a year across our eight sites it varies from year to year as to where it's perhaps busiest as you might say particularly when it comes to the crime and of course unfortunately as you know in Inverness there's been a spate of raptor poisings this last week while and our teams work closely with the authorities on that we've ensured our veterinary staff have had appropriate training to give support to the fiscal if it comes to prosecutions and have got the correct evidence I would guess you give a figure there of roughly 200 across the eight sites but you know I would have thought the majority of these were concentrated in the likes of Inverness perhaps Perth it won't be a general sort of average spread will it well it varies year to year as to where the birds are coming we're not just talking about iconic species of course we can get finches and other birds and you know one of my previous colleagues has worked very closely with the RSPB and the garden bird survey and it's important that we see this because of course these carcasses we do screen also for not just thinking of crime but also thinking of infectious diseases avian influenza, west Nile virus so samples are taken for the GB strategy looking to see is there been an incursion of these exotic viruses but in terms of the past year or the recent years one would assume there's perhaps been an upsurge in the volume of the likes of raptor poison and postmortems in Inverness well no I think there's a greater realisation of the importance of wildlife crime I don't know if there's any more of it in fact I think the evidence from Scottish agricultural science agency data there's an encouraging downward trend and I think you know it's good that there's a general acceptance of the importance within the community that we've got to tackle this type of issue so I mean I wouldn't like you to think that we're not cognisant of the fact that we are dealing with these but the principal reason that we have our eight DSCs is to provide support to the veterinary practices and the livestock farming the dealing with the wildlife crime and wildlife as a whole is very much seen as supplementary and you know people who are willing to bring in carcasses from these type of species will often be willing to travel that bit further okay thank you thank you very much Dave Thompson thank you very much good afternoon gentlemen I just want to tease out a wee bit more about the Inverness site and the distances that are involved in the Highlands and Islands just to get anywhere and maybe that's part of the reason why not so many people, lots of whom have very small holdings and it's expensive and difficult and time-consuming you know to get to Inverness these folk are going to find it even more difficult, expensive and time-consuming to get to Aberdein or Thurso the central belt to take animals along to you there's also like a general principle here I think that we need to bear in mind if we always base our decisions in relation to Highlands facilities on the fact that they're a bit smaller than facilities in the rest of the country we'll continue to denude the Highlands of these facilities because the logic will be that the small ones and the Highland ones always have to be the ones that go and we need some reverse thinking I think in relation to this if we're going to help to develop and build the Highlands and Islands and believe you me the Highlands and Islands needs a lot of help so that's the first sort of point I would make and following on from that and looking at the map of the locations of your sites it would seem to me to keep the Inverness site open but to shut your Edinburgh DSC because down in the central belt area you've got another foar that covers geographically a very good spread it would be relatively easy for folk your roads are far better for a start so it's much easier to drive down a motorway or a dual carriageway than it is to come from Skye on pretty poor Highland roads so I would just like to pose that point to you first of all about a bit of reverse thinking here Well, thank you Mr Thompson for that suggestion I mean we're certainly very alert to the fact that the aren't a disadvantaged areas and SRUC SAC consulting is very alert to the needs of the more remote communities we have got our advisory service throughout Scotland including the outer herbodies and Skye and what have you so we are alert to these problems and I think what we're trying to do is to say are there better ways of working in this area to take advantage of new technologies to support the practices in the area and yet to provide a better service and you're quite right that a large number of small units in the Highlands Islands we reckon there's 25% of the livestock holdings about 5,500 livestock holdings in the region served by the Inverness centre unfortunately because of exactly the point you were making about distances and the fact that farmers tend to be working with willing to travel about 30 miles about 50 kilometres that we're getting most of the work coming in there but there's only about 20% of the holdings in that catchment area so there's about 1,000 holdings in that area and as you say some of them are not very large businesses we've got 60% of the holdings are more than 100 kilometres away from Inverness so we're starting to say right this is just a disadvantage all the way through how can we do the job better and we've been exercising our minds we've been speaking to our strategic management board and of course we've had the consultation responses and we've got some ideas that we're working up at present as to how we could do the job better to mutual benefit you know we can only provide our disease surveillance activities by working with the practices by working with the farmers to deliver them with a diagnostic service that they can benefit from but we benefit from the surveillance information now is that well it doesn't fully answer my question now sorry and if you do away with the Inverness DSC then all those farmers who are currently using it and crofters and so on will certainly not go to Thurso or Aberdein which are the next nearest ones so you lose all of them if they'll only travel 50 kilometres so you immediately get rid of all of that and we then have no data in the Inverness and West Highland areas coming into your system I wouldn't have thought that would be very clever yeah at all and we're actually exploring alternatives some of which were raised by the consultation you know there was somebody who was suggesting there was a need for itinerant service this sort of thing you know should our vets be based up there but working out in the community and things of that nature so you know these are ideas but they're not ones that we can just switch on overnight we've got to do our homework and you know make sure that we've got that sort of out but that was one of the benefits that came out so I'm really very helpful when it's coming into that consultation and I think you've actually received the summary in your papers Would you say any benefits in your overall costings and so on you're trying to save money here and closing your Inverness DSC workload going to the four DSCs round and about it sorry my sorry I you know we are trying to work with the canaird recommendations that were produced following a two year review in 2011 and one of these was that we should be working with the vet schools we're very fortunate in Scotland we've got two world class vet schools in both Edinburgh and Glasgow and so it would make sense that we maintain that facility in Edinburgh such that the undergraduates who are after all our future veterinary surgeons have got greater exposure to veterinary pathology and live veterinary pathology not the sort of pickled specimens that I unfortunately had to deal with when I was an undergraduate 40 years ago but we're trying to do the real cases if it's a final point please one final point it's not very far from Edinburgh to the border, you know you're less than an hour from the map there so your students could easily get their experience they need a DSC if they did that if you're wanting to ensure you raise money from the drum and held site which is a very valuable site then you could move the Inverness DSC to Dingwall and you'd still be able to you know get a good price for the drum and held site and probably get a much cheaper site to do in Dingwall so I'd ask you to consider that as well certainly in a very fair point about Dingwall and that was one of the things that came back from the consultation was the many of the vets and farmers felt that the existing site of Drummond Hill was really inappropriate in its location access was poor the fact it's an urban situation beside primary school and what to have you and they were very keen that we consider something like Dingwall as being more of a natural hub for the area so these were I think positive points yes re-emphasise a point that Dave Thompson made and really cut through this if I look at the commentary on your announcement from the people in the Highlands and Islands who have used your service social media and other commentary it is entirely negative people do not want this to happen your service users do not want this to happen and regrettably it's a little unfair to you because you're coming to this committee on one issue whereas those of us who are Highland members see lots of other issues regrettably you are simply confirming that what is taking place regularly is that organisations say we don't have enough critical mass in the Highlands and Islands so let's just move somewhere else and let's tell them that this is going to be a better service because we've got new technology that could be the case one time in the future but it's not going to be the case now it's not going to be the case for many people in the Highlands and Islands who's access to broadband is poor, who's access to mobile phone technology is poor so until there is a clear alternative which people, your users say that's much better that's really what we're looking for then you shouldn't be doing it and I mean it's as simple as that speaking as a Highland representative because Highland representatives really need to say that they're not drawing services make sure those services are provided near to us and as Dave says if there is a required to close places close places there are alternatives within easy travelling distance I mean it's sort of open and shut and I'm sorry to be so clear and blunt but sometimes it's necessary to be clear and blunt in these circumstances you just have to pay attention to what the people who use you want and they don't want it closed if I could respond to that having just spent considerable time since arriving travelling around the Highlands and Islands I now have a good idea of some of the demographics or the demographics, the topography of the area and the remoteness of some of the parts that we're trying to cover and I'm also aware in the light of the consultation that we've had the sensitivities that there are about the depletion of all the issues that you just mentioned so quite aware of that I think in trying to fit our concerns from a veterinary perspective the focus here being on disease surveillance around so the technical aspects of disease surveillance around the budgetary constraints that we have we have also started and I have to say that much of these thoughts have come out of the consultation that we can we can segment the different services that we're providing and if I was just to sketch out where we think we could be going in the longer term I appreciate the sort of thing that you could have given us in writing before this because we're talking about the immediate issue about you moving to a service in the future which might well develop in a particular scientific way but at the moment we're talking about centres which are under threat as a result of that and I'm sure that they are by your own parameters the arguments that you believe are correct there is however an equal and opposite point of view from the people who use you who require this service and the issue of rurality is very heavy in these scales by all means I'm sure the committee will read what you provide to them on this but the weight of evidence from my constituents Dave's constituents Rob's constituents will be against these changes and I hope your organisation will bear that very much in mind We will bear it in mind and we do recognise that and certainly the response to the consultation that comes across very strongly so in our thoughts about where we are and where we're going forward we do not have an immediate intention to leave an absence of access to our services the key service being the availability in order to do post mortins I'm sorry, I must press you just to make that point when you use that phrase that phrase is not the same as saying I'm sorry we're not going to do this action because this action is the wrong action for the people who use us so absence of access to our services right implies there are different ways of delivering these and we'll just do that there are people who say we don't want you to change we do not, with the greatest of respect believe that that access will be adequate that is I think where I am where others are and that's the position we're representing to you Thank you, St. John and then Sarah Boyack we will be broadening this out to the whole Scotland review in a minute Well, it's just on that, convener I'm conscious that Ock and Crue hasn't been mentioned yet I'm not sure how many have been received in the consultation however you have no doubt noticed a submission by my colleague Adam Ingram MSP for Caryg Cymru can doon valley who, as you'd expect believes that the air DSC should be retained at Ock and Crue and he makes a number of very strong points in the submission and to quote just partly from his submission he says that the farming community in the south west of Scotland are bitterly resentful at what they see as a forced expropriation of a valuable part of farming infrastructure which sustained their activities they wish to see the existing centre maintained at Nery's gate he also goes on to say this will impact very negatively on livestock disease surveillance in Scotland and the risks to Scottish farming far outweigh the benefits to be accrued from small cost savings and just finally just picking out another point at the estates my understanding of the caneer report findings was that the strategic management board were tasked with creating and implementing a new strategic vision for veterinary surveillance in Scotland which may include the reduction in the number of DSCs this consultation fails utterly to place the potential closure of two sites in the context of delivering any kind of vision it appears simply to be an exercise in cost cutting by centralisation I'd be keen to hear your review on in particular the Oach and Crouve facility given the view of Adam Ingram MSP I did speak on the telephone to Mr Ingram during the consultation so thank you Mr Ingram well the situation with regard to the air Oach and Crouve DSC is one of our busiest centres and in contrast with in Venice we were talking about 240 submissions of carcasses a year on average we are looking at something like 600 odd at Oach and Crouve so a very different situation there it's serving an important livestock area and your criticised or suggested that there was a lack of vision the vision that we were adopting was that laid out in the canair review that it was conducted over a two-year period in 2010-2011 and in that it was to thought that there was benefits or agreed that there were benefits in working closely with the two vet schools in this case the vet school in Glasgow and so we've had a close dialogue with them they were actively involved in the consultation with us they attended the meetings that were held at the racecourse with farmer and veterinary surgeons in the area and yes we are taking on board the concerns obviously there would be farmers who would benefit there would be closer to if there was a PM facility created at Glasgow vet school then we could have served them better unfortunately that would be in the detriment of some who are already enjoying easy access but we are working with the Glasgow University to try to find another way of working together that meets the aspirations laid out in the canair review whereas this vision is explained to Mr Thomson earlier on about the undergraduates benefiting from access to this post-mortem material vet the undergraduates have got to be sent out to all the conditions around the country that they are likely to meet indeed to encourage them to take up posts there we can't get private vets in the highlands because people are desquaded from doing large animal veterinary medicine the whole process of vet training may be based in two places but in order to give the students an opportunity to find out what the rest of the country is like they have to go out so whether the college or the vet service is near to the college is neither here nor there I think you need to give us a cost benefit analysis of what you propose because that's something we have not heard that's the nub of the matter which we need to know about just now and I'm beginning to lose the point that there's a whole lot of very useful questions to go for time is short but we actually need to know what it is that you've adopted this approach because SRUC has got track records on this back in 2003 they wanted to close Auckland crew they wanted to close Thanestone in those sort of areas and centralise things in Edinburgh well we were there at that time and we're seeing it happening again so give us your cost benefit analysis about this right now Carina there's no doubt that we are significant budgetary pressures and that will have a bearing on what we will be having effectively 10% of our budget has been withdrawn so that has undoubtedly had an impact on some of the decision making and that's a reality we have to face I think as far as the infrastructure of service is concerned we are attempting to think through the whole process in a slightly different way in order to keep the access to facilities available in the areas that are covered at the moment so in terms of farmers having a location to which they can take animals to have a postmortem done that we do everything that we can to retain that and that's our current thinking on this issue we still believe that we can go some way to doing that we haven't finished the exercise entirely but in the process of doing so we need to find some savings we are under pressure to do that and that's a good question at the moment because I'm not getting an answer to what the cost-benefit analysis is which is platform questions I think you might want to go to Jim to Mr Hume but I think a lot of the ground that I was going to ask about has been covered but the question that does seem to me with the best will in the world that there's an element of putting cart before horse here especially given the amount of time that's elapsed between the Canary report and the consultation and if you look at the Inverness situation it appears that the decision to make the changes that you've put forward and yet the suggested alternative such as greater use of private vets hasn't been tested and I'm horrified to hear that Mr Hosey Bryan you said they basically closed their minds to working further to help with that situation so you've put forward a solution to the alternatives and I think Mike Russell is right that if people are aware of the alternatives and have confidence that they are going to work you'll get acceptance of it but what you've put forward is creating the angst and the anger that's clearly visible around the table and I think that's really the only point I can make on that I think we've got the cart before the horse we have worked through these plans was the canary review they came up with proposals we've had the strategic management board set up by the cabinet secretary since well it's now it's forced year of operation we've come up with various proposals at their request and we've been guided by them as to how we can adapt and modify the surveillance programme with the now increasing budgetary constraints in the documentation you'll see the financial figures that we have and these are figures that we produce on a quarterly basis for the Government as part of our reporting mechanism on the grant and aid that we get so we do try to be open and clear there and I'm a bit distressed by the fact that we're hiding something that's coming forward but the reality is that significant amounts of taxpayer funds these funds have been reduced and we're now on a flat funding programme so it's effectively further cuts we have a network that was established many years ago and it's ragged at the edges and needs to be refreshed and enhanced and my staff and I have had many many years of service to SAC I've done 32 years and there's many of my colleagues around the country of up to 40 years and more and we are distressed that we are finding ourselves working in facilities that are well past our sell by date and we do need to be making some hard decisions as to the way forward and people deride us for trying to come up with other suggestions because they don't like the idea of us changing it the reality is that we are working under extremely difficult circumstances people are putting in well beyond the contractual hours in an effort to hold the thing together I don't doubt that and I've shared many of your 30-odd years with you as you're well aware in various different roles but the point I have to make that has already been raised to a certain extent is that if we want to bring in changes of this nature in order to take people with you in order to take people with you you've got to have an acceptable alternative in place and I come back to Inverness that there are arguments around lots of the other ones as well particularly the often proven one I used to use that a lot myself a great deal myself rather too often for my financial comfort but had the alternative been to go to Glasgow I don't think so, I don't think I'd have been doing it I lived 25 miles south of Eir as it was then and all of that argument comes in but on the Inverness situation which is the really big one here you're not taking people with you, that's the problem it is I think almost as simple as that I think we accept that and in my summary of the consultation I think I made that recognise that quite clearly yes, we have to think again so thank you for that Before I bring in Sarah Connecticut Jim Hume to ask his question with regarding the annual budgets Sarah Boyack For those who know me, I've come from a rural background and still have nightmares about foot and mouth when it hit south of Scotland in 2001, not just for the economy and the animal welfare but for the mental welfare of many farmers who are still suffering to this day so I totally oppose what's going on today we've heard from the NFU they're saying that there's been no details of cost benefit analysis or a reference to any alternative options that may have been considered we've heard that private vets could be used for doing post mortums and they are united in their opposition to this Mr Wynberg Mr Wynberg, you mentioned that there's been 10% cut in money from the Government but for the last up until 2011-12 there's been no cut there's been 3,773,000 every year from the Scottish Government funded advisory services Mr Hozier, you mentioned time and time again it's to improve services but we're also hearing it's to do with cuts so could we have an honest answer to whether it is for purely for financial reasons or is it for better services and if it is for better services nobody here has yet heard how these better services will actually be delivered and it would also be interesting to know what would happen with the state a talking crew and inverness would that be sold has there been a situation where you've actually valued that to this point and is this a case of perhaps selling some of the silver to pay for income Can we take that in two sections I'd like to sketch the bigger picture and Brian will respond specifically on the budget amounts the reference to everything that we're doing being done on the basis of providing better surveillance just to provide some perspective on that the strong initiator in here is the fact that we're under budgetary pressure so Brian will talk about that in a minute I think what this has created is an opportunity for us to consider where we are with disease surveillance overall within Scotland we've talked about the infrastructure which is worn out and tired and needs reorganising, replacing etc but it's also an opportunity then to consider some of the things that are going on internationally from a disease surveillance point of view so there are opportunities for us to operate in a different way there's also we have a world class team in our epidemiology unit in inverness which has not been fully utilised in this respect in terms of analysis of data so that's the active surveillance spit that we spoke about at the beginning and we should be using their services more holy so all at the context of that is just saying that it's an opportunity for us to take stock on how things are done and to take a slightly different approach it's not to say that what we're trying to do is to take away the services provided on a local basis we're doing everything we can to try and maintain that but make these other changes at the same time after the costings the budget information is in table 1 of the figures that you were given and you'll see that we had a 36,000 pound cut in 1112 and then a further 300,000 pound cut in the following year and then since then we've had flat funding we were very fortunate we were given additional supplementary income from the government and you can see the figures there up to 300 or 1000 pounds and we've been told that we should not be relying on these contingency funds going forward I should make it clear that the funding from the Scottish Government we are told about the funding going forward very much at the last minute before the new financial year starts we normally expect to get the figures in November-December so we can do our planning for the financial year starting in April I do not know the figures that we'll be working with next financial year I understand from the press that it might well be quite late on but we're trying to work within these limitations so that these are the figures that are reported through the system Just to follow up on that you do get around about £4 million per annum for funded veterinary advisory services do you not think that there is a risk that you're facing a never-decreasing circle if there's no vision for where you're going forward to because I don't think we've seen that if there's a risk to less of the country then there's a risk that the Government may look even less I don't speak for government, I oppose it of course you are at risk of losing your funding even more because you're providing less of a service to cover the country I think the one-up thing that we have actually had a good opportunity to do now and the light of all the response that we've had to the stakeholder consultation is to take stock of our vision because I take up a new role I understand that us being able, putting ourselves in a position where we can articulate that much more clearly to everybody taking into consideration the disengagement that there is from some of the veterinary surgeries and so on that is incumbent upon us to be able to do that more clearly so we recognise that, we do have a vision for where we're going and I think where we want to move forward with that now how we communicate that on an intelligent basis in order to try and get important engagement from everybody to address the point of decreasing your footprint in Scotland does rescue a chance of decreasing funding part of the vision that we have is to do everything we can not to decrease the footprint so in terms of availability of the facilities to do post mortems in other words, the man with a dead cow who's been used to being able to take it into a facility in Edinburgh in wherever it might be to have it attended to trying to maintain that so we're setting out to try and do that and everything we're thinking about there are issues of fabric of buildings and all that sort of thing that we need to deal with where we believe that we can get some savings will also be in a reorganisation of laboratory facilities and a concentration of how the capital is required in order to equip those facilities so as we think about that in the longer term that might be a direction of travel and just the very last point was has there been work done by yourselves to value the properties at Auckland crew van and in the next four sale purposes or we have good evaluation although it's not a formal evaluation on the property in in Inverness so yes we have got in fact we'll have on all of our properties plus we'll also have on maintenance requirements for those buildings projected over the next 10 years those might be quite interesting to share if possible so a member for the Lothians well I have to say I mean my question is really about how the responses to the consultation of change thinking about the future of disease surveillance centres in Scotland but I think it's been for me it's been quite interesting listening to the conversation around the table because there's obviously the challenge that private vets don't want to take over the work that you've suggested I get the sense of people working flat out to make the existing system work and that that's not possible under the current financial envelope but it's a contracted position so I mean I'm wondering convener in the light of all the comments that people have made this is partly about the financial envelope and I wonder if this work has been contracted to SAC consulting limited given the response the very strong response and the knowledge around the table and having seen the submissions is this doable to people's satisfaction given the financial envelope and I think that's a question that we could probably spend longer being unhappy with what is being told to us but unless that financial envelope changes or somebody has got some clever thinking about a transitional plan allowing new investment in places that are currently not fit for purpose I can't see us being satisfied with any of the responses we might get today and I don't see that as a Lothians member I see that as somebody who's looking at this and thinking about farmers thinking about the private veterinary world who's thinking about training for new vets and thinking about the crucial link between animal husbandry and animal health and welfare and the direct relationship to human health and I think Jim's point about the disease outbreak in the early years of this parliament is absolutely spot on once you're in the middle of one of these you can learn your lessons afterwards but the human and mental costs are massive so from where we're sitting as committee members it's very rare for us all to be so so unified in something and I wonder if actually this is something that we need to communicate to the cabinet secretary I wasn't expecting us to have this kind of discussion and I think it's been quite useful I think that that's very fair points and you know resuming my sort of more neutral role as a convener rather than as a local member in the islands I think it's important that the cabinet secretary engages with us on the basis of the discussion that we've had today and the basis of the kinds of views that have been put forward but it would be necessary I think for the cabinet secretary to know what the access to services point is and secondly what this strategic vision is because it's impossible to tell for us at this time exactly where this is all leading except that it's a contraction of particular services we have at present Mike Russell There is a confusion I'm not going to be able to take this forward here but there is a confusion in the overall roles within the organisation SRUC is now not going into merger I understand it has absorbed three colleges matter of which I have had some involvement the relationship between the consulting arm and the university and the academic arm is at times porous at one way or the other there does need to be a much greater clarity about the overall role of SRUC its overall vision and its contribution as Jim Hume has indicated the fact that money is going one way to do the veterinary work which is entirely legitimate money is going another way to do academic work we need some clarity about this because all institutions are under pressure but the response to that pressure and I don't think anybody, Brian is saying that they are criticising individuals the response to that pressure is not always to retreat from the periphery the response to that pressure is sometimes to say how can we configure in a different way and how can we look at the organisation in a different way and I think this time that that is the overall vision of the organisation was expressed in a way that it could be understood by Scotland so that there is a general response to the we are trying to finish by half past one because touched on marine issues which is a fundamental question I do need to ask those questions we should do that thank you very much please do I we have received two submissions on marine issues in relation to your brief and one is from the marine animal rescue coalition and one from the whale and dolphin from whale and dolphin conservation and it's been highlighted I'll just raise three points firstly that in their view that the reviews have had a terrestrial perspective not a marine perspective that there are legal obligations in relation to marine issues that need to be honoured and I'm in no way suggesting they're not being honoured but going forward into the future and also the suggestion has been made and I'll just highlight the concern again about Inverness that the rapid response and the animal welfare issues in relation to shooting of seals and relation to other mammals such as whales and the analysis through postmortem are extremely valuable and there's a plea that at least the postmortem aspect of that could be considered now I'm saying that at least the postmortem in relation to marine that is not in any way to pre-empt the comments that have been made about the terrestrial arguments being put forward by the members but I wonder if you could comment on those concerns we recognise all the concerns that you've mentioned we've and then we've met with the Scottish Government it's a different funding stream associated with the marine strandings operations it's a small team of three people that are involved in that the facilities that they've used to date have been the same facilities that are essentially there to cover terrestrial mammals so we've got one or two issues to work through but we are working hard at making sure that we retain that operation, that team and the services that they provide in the area we could also say that we've spoken with Marine Scotland who are the funding body for that work and made it clear that the rather short term one to three year contracts that we tend to operate on or we do operate on under that work we better to have a longer term plan given all these points that you have made Mrs Beamish that if we are to provide a long term service we really need long term funding and a succession of one to three year contracts does put a disadvantage in that kind of planning so would you agree that the comments about the emphasis of the review being terrestrial would imply if you're in agreement with that that there should be a considerable amount of further consultation on the marine aspects of this I know you say you're speaking with Marine Scotland but in terms of stakeholders and in terms of the way forward if your business plan and your outlook which are the terms that have been raised by one of the submissions if those don't take into account the marine issues and this is a cause for concern I think we would recognise that the focus of the consultation has been on terrestrial animals that's fair to say but I would emphasise that we are not neglecting that aspect it has a lot of merits the work has been done there whether it be because of EU commitments whether it be because of the quality of information or whether indeed if you'd allow your mind to think a little bit further about the potential that could be achieved in that area in terms of the interface with students and bringing people into that area and a broader public role we do recognise that so it's probably been looked at as a slightly separate issue to one side but not neglected I emphasise finish this just now we may be able to fill up some things in writing but a short supplementary on the marine budget very briefly just for the clarity of funding from Marine Scotland which budget heading does that come under on the table it doesn't come under this one at all so those figures aren't an entirely accurate reflection of the income then no, those figures relate to the funding stream that's under the veterinary advisory service budget and so we get granted aid funds as I've explained that other income that's fee income because the farmers or rather the veterinary practitioners will pay a fee for any blood test we're made counts of post mortems at a subsidised rate so it's partly funded by the laboratory fees and partly funded by the government's grant and aid and of course some aspects are fully funded by the government grant and aid so the specific veterinary expertise that we provide on new and emerging diseases that kind of stuff will be fully funded the work that you mentioned about wildlife crime if there's a police involvement forensic pathology appearance in court you know these are huge costs and these today are fully funded by the government 62% of our funding is through this stream here so this is what these figures are so that's the grant and aid the laboratory fees associated with that specific work 38% of our income is out with that so that's covering the marine strandings work that we do on health schemes, health planning that kind of commercial we call commercial income testing on dogs, cats, horses that's out with the government funding but we make use of the facilities so that we're able to have that greater flexibility in response to national crisis because we're doing these tests on a bigger scale and we're engaging with the community supporting veterinary practices by giving them additional opportunities to add value to their visits through doing blood testing for health schemes giving the private farmer also opportunities to add value to their livestock that kind of thing whereby we're giving health stamps and accreditation to foster the value of the stock thank you, I will value reading the evidence and the discussion that's taken place as you can gather there are strong views it's not personal in any way but we would like to thank you for your evidence so far and obviously there's going to be further discussions about this with the SRUC SAC and the cabinet secretary so I want to conclude this session just now by saying thank you for being with us and understand where we're coming from thank you we have a future meeting on the 7th of September in Portree to begin taking stakeholder evidence on the land reform Scotland bill like all committee meetings public event tickets are available from the Parliament's website and as agreed earlier we're going to move into private session fairly rapidly so I close this public meeting of the committee today and thank all those who are here and clear the gallery