 Welcome to the 18th meeting this year of Rural Affairs Climate Change and Environment Committee. Everyone present should turn off electronic items such as mobile phones and so on, except those you may be using tablets in the line of business because they otherwise can interfere with the sound system. First of all, we have a substitute for Cara Hilton, who can't be here, and welcome to Claire Baker. The first item on the agenda today is the committee to take consideration of the work programme in private. That's due to come up very soon. That's at the next meeting. Are we agreed? Very agreed. Thank you. We are agreed. Agenda item 2, the Land Reform Review Group final report. This item today will take evidence from the Minister for Environment and Climate Change on the Land Reform Review Group's final report. I welcome the Minister, Paul Wheelhouse. Good morning. His officials, Stephen Patherana, from the head of land and reform and tenancy unit, and Dave Thompson, a regular attendor at our committee, one way or another, head of land reform policy team in the Scottish Government. Good morning, gentlemen. I invite the minister to make any introductory statement that he wishes. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning, committee. It's good to be here to discuss the Land Reform Review Group's report. I'd like to thank the Land Reform Review Group and our team of advisers for producing what is a very comprehensive report on land reform with a total of 62 far-reaching recommendations. When the Scottish Government set the remit for the Land Reform Review Group, we were clear that it should focus on how to increase diversity of land ownership and support more resilient and independent communities. I'm therefore pleased that the review group started from the position that land is a finite resource and decisions taken on its ownership and use must be taken in the public interest and for the common good, with which I wholeheartedly agree. This Government's vision is for a Scotland where we acknowledge that land is intimately linked to ideas of wellbeing, justice, economic opportunity and identity, that our policies ensure Scotland's land works in the benefit to the people of Scotland, that a stronger relationship between land and people will empower people across the whole of Scotland contributing to both prosperity and sustainable development of the nation. We recognise the empowering nature of land ownership. We view that at present the land ownership is too highly concentrated without having been put forward that just 0.008% of people own more than 50% of private land. There are circumstances where it can be against the public interest for any individual or organisation to hold a monopoly of land. Diversity creates opportunity and choice and empowers communities as well as individuals. Land as a resource should play its part in building a fairer society. Moving forward I believe that we need to build a society with greater diversity of land ownership, one where communities and individuals have access to land to fulfil their aspirations and their needs. We have a specific target to have 1 million acres of land in community ownership by 2020 and it's certainly a stretching target. This is sometimes portrayed as pro-community and anti-private ownership and this is not the case. As concentration of ownership decreases there will be room for both more community owners and more private owners. It is also clear that land reform in Scotland is not something solely for the Highlands and Islands or rural Scotland. It is for the whole of Scotland and we need to take land reform to urban areas to tackle the blight of derelict land in our cities. The community empowerment bill will take forward some of the recommendations in the report but not all. The report contains recommendations we may agree with and some we may not. But I welcome the overall direction of travel and I'm sure that this committee does too. That is why I announced that I will be seeking to bring forward a land reform bill during this term of Parliament. If we are able to confirm the figure of 432 that's again 0.08% of the population owning half of the privately owned land in Scotland then as I've stated previously this is not a situation where you would think of creating in terms of designing a system from scratch and that should not be the case in a modern Scotland. My aim is for land reform to address this by delivering maximum benefits to the people of Scotland and so that we can engender a constructive dialogue on the way forward finding consensus where we can do so. The review group's report has given us the opportunity to frame the land reform debate in Scotland around public interest and I'm keen to see public land made available for community ownership and other opportunities to diversify land ownership. I hope that we can grasp this opportunity with both hands and I welcome the chance to discuss the land reform review group report with this committee. Thank you very much Minister. You've suggested that there's going to be a land reform bill coming forward and of course there's a community empowerment bill on the stocks. Could you help us by suggesting the kind of timetable for both of these please? The community empowerment bill will be introduced imminently. That's all I can say in terms of protocol that's for Mr Mackay clearly to lead in that but I can assure the committee it will be with Parliament in short order and the land reform bill it is the prerogative and the protocol that the First Minister announces the legislative programme which is why I've not given further detail on that and that will happen in the normal manner later in the year but we intend to do so in this Parliament and that's what I've put on record at the community land Scotland conference in Saturday to give people confidence there will be an opportunity to take forward some of the more longer term more substantive issues rather than trying to shoehorn them in to the community empowerment bill when we obviously need time to consider the recommendations and to take a considered view on them. Given the report's inclusion of matters which it suggests are dealt with in the community empowerment bill can such matters be introduced at an early stage or are we going to expect any kind of consultation ahead of their introduction which could come at stage two if the community empowerment bill is imminent? Well we obviously have consulted on the community empowerment Scotland bill already and the committee I hope will have seen the sense of direction that we had in that bill in terms of trying to address the streamlining of community ownership measures which ties in with some of the recommendations of the land reform review group so we are using the community empowerment bill or proposing to take forward some of the things which we believe we can do we have consulted on and we have got a clear view of where we want to go and obviously members in the Parliament may will decide to bring things forward at stage two of community empowerment bill but we would certainly urge people to think about the opportunity of the wider land reform bill when it comes that's an opportunity perhaps to take a more considered view of the recommendations and obviously we intend to consult as a government on any proposals we would put forward in the bill. Thank you very much. Look at the issue of land registration particularly. This is seen as pivotal to understanding who owns Scotland and for people to have access to that information. Would it be more useful to build a non-definitive rather than a legal title register at an early stage? Clearly what we have signalled is that we believe that the completion of the register is extremely important to improve transparency so if you take a focus on the outcomes that we are trying to achieve here we want to have greater accountability and transparency in terms of ownership of land so people can identify who is the appropriate landowner which is not always possible in many cases and that includes to be fair public land as well we've made clear commitment we need to improve our act as well but we need to have greater transparency and accountability for the actions of those who own the land so that's the focus and we've decided my colleague Fergus Ewing who leads for the portfolio interests in terms of register of Scotland and myself have asked register of Scotland to take forward measures to complete the land register in over a 10-year period and to show leadership we want to see all publicly owned land registered in a 5-year period and that's some feedback from the likes of Crown Estate who've committed to complete their registration within a 10-year period and I welcome that sort of positive engagement on this issue and encourage others to take up the opportunity to understand that there's a degree of concern in the committee at the evidence we've heard about this about the timescale that it would take to do this and that's why I asked about a non-definitive method of recognising who owns what the actual legal boundaries and so on may well take longer because of the difficulties of surveying these but surely it should be possible Minister for us to have an outline register that anyone could go into their local council office and find out who owns a substantial piece of land let's say more than about 50 acres I certainly agree with you, convener that we need to get that understanding and that information is vital to having the optimisation of land use and ownership in Scotland I'll bring in Stephen Pather and I shortly just to talk about the detail of this but what we are keen to do we understand the challenge that there is in terms of completing the register of timescale but some have criticised this for taking 10 years we know that this is going to be extremely challenging task it will not come without its resource implications and we need to evaluate what the resource implications will be in full and that's why we're consulting with Registers of Scotland themselves on the practicalities of how we deliver this but there's a very positive attitude from both the Registers of Scotland as an organisation and as I've said already some stakeholders are already saying they're willing to sign up to this as well so I do believe we've got a consensus this is a sensible thing to do it's an important thing to do and clearly we've tackled it but I'll bring in Stephen Pather and I on the detail of the definitive versus non-definitive land register In essence, thank you, convener in essence a non-definitive register will be a very useful thing to have I certainly think it's something that we should be exploring at a practical level in terms of how that could be taken forward it's certainly something that the both review group point to and stakeholders point to because obviously the sooner we have a clearer and better picture in Scotland the better for for decision making I understand Minister that the Highland Council commission such a register in recent years I think the area is about 200 acres but it allowed a very general picture to be made quite quickly within a few months of who owns the bulk of the Highland Council area Since we've got information held by public bodies like SNH the Forestry commission Scottish Water and indeed the agricultural records, the IACS records surely it should be possible to tap into these in each area to be able to use some of that information given that it points to the people who have ownership or are the holders of particular pieces of land I certainly agree, convener that that process and if you can identify the general understanding and pattern of landers should be very helpful from an economic development planning and community development, community planning purposes so that it would have a great value I suppose we're perhaps a definitive register actually comes to the aid of the landowner themselves and they've got as with crofting for example we made the point in terms of crofting I know it's a different issue but the point about being able to register a definitive boundary of your croft then gives you certainty of engagement with lenders engagement with neighbours in terms of resolving disputes so there are advantages to a landowner from having a definitive register and I think that's one thing we're taking into account but certainly I take your point, convener from point of view of using existing data to fully inform us at a local level as to what the general pattern of ownership is so we've got a rough idea as to who owns a bit of land or at least be able to tell between two different landowners rather than not knowing who owns it at all to all economic development partners and indeed for planning purposes as well just before I bring in some supplementaries whether it's the case that it is the case that most Forestry Commission land is not registered and I put it to one of the panel last week that perhaps we should be looking to the bodies who own land to put up the money to get the registration process done now I suggested to them that the Forestry Commission could sell off a few affordable housing plots in order to cover the costs of making the maps this could apply I suppose to private owners do you think that we should be insisting that people actually spend the money to get the process started of mapping their land certainly the first step is to get a positive engagement from all stakeholders that this is a valuable exercise I think we are beginning to see that people are recognising as I say we've already had some stakeholders write to me as a minister to say we're up for this and I very much welcome that positive construction of approach we need to best understand the financial implications what it will actually cost more definitive figures because we're accelerating effectively an existing timescale we had for completion of the register and we had some costings for that but accelerating it will make it more expensive so we need to understand that work that through as to who pays for it I think that's something we need to come back to the committee on in due course but clearly we are looking at from the point of view of Forestry Commission are keen to engage in that the point that you make about a lot of the Forestry Commission land not being registered and I think we all accept that it's not an acceptable position to be in and it's in everybody's interest that that land is registered so there's a certain element from public sector point of view we'll take that on the chin and we will from our own from point of view of our own organisations have to incorporate that cost into our own budgets but we need to work through the implications for others outside of government in terms of completing the register you mentioned in your answer that crofters have to put up the money to do their own registration it would seem only fair that larger landowners who are far more wealthy in every sense than crofters actually put up that money and that we can get some sort of guidance on that from you soon would be very helpful we certainly will, convener you'll understand, I hope that this is a matter that Fergus Ewing is the policy lead in terms of the register to make policy on the hoof for Mr Ewing but we are engaging in the dialogue about how we achieve this and I will make contact after this committee meeting with Mr Ewing to see if we can give a more consider view as to how the charging for this may work in terms of future some supplementaries, Claire Baker thank you convener, first of all I welcome the minister's initial comments and hope that those members who are committed to taking forward land reform will understand just to go back to the issue of cost when we had the meeting last week with the stakeholders there was a feeling that while the information transparency was certainly important there were perhaps other ways to achieve this and there were comments that if the cost would be better spent and there could be greater gains rather than committing it to the land register the other issue is if we look back at stage 2 and 3 of the land register bill Fergus Ewing was pretty clear about the cost and that was one of the reasons he didn't commit to a timescale and the language around that was not particularly helpful on some of the options put to members did they want to spend it on the land register or did they want to take the money from schools and hospitals there was that kind of language that went on at the committee that might have been committee banter but there was certainly an issue that he identified around how much this was going to cost so greater clarity on that would certainly be welcome and the other point around the report also made comments that there has been land reform issues pursued but they have been pretty scattered and have not been coherent and the land registration bill is a key example of that that was taken forward it seemed like there wasn't much awareness of a land reform agenda around the passage of that bill so as we're looking at the community and power bill being introduced can we ensure that we have greater coherence in government and that that bill is seen as a vehicle for community ownership and for taking forward the land reform agenda I certainly welcome the positive remarks from Claire Baker about the report itself and I certainly share her view that this is an important piece of work and contribute to the land reform agenda in terms of the points that are fairly made about the cost of registration and the debate that has been previously I will come back to the committee with Mr Ewing's thoughts on that as well I think that's a fair point that Claire Baker has made about we have to make choices and if this is a high priority in terms of achieving the registration in the timescale that we've set out then that will have potentially consequences in terms of financing that but we'll try and give greater clarity to the committee so you're informed yourselves in terms of bringing forward your own thoughts on the implications of the land reform review group in terms of the coherence issue I do accept that there have been various strands of land reform action being taken by this Government and previous administrations as well and I know the land reform review group have called for perhaps if I could describe it as a land policy sort of more of an overarching land policy and I think that's certainly an interesting issue which we are considering about how we bring land use if you like look of land reform issues land use which I know some people obviously regard land use as being integral to land reform as well so I'm not saying they're necessarily totally distinct but we've got an existing land use strategy which obviously goes through a period of continual review and updating obviously we've had a very important exercise in terms of land reform review group which has looked at a number of aspects of land reform and very much welcomed the report and whether we take that forward in terms of a more overarching strategy to tie these together obviously there's interaction with the planning system other policies in terms of biodiversity or even climate change so there's a whole raft of areas of government policy which land has an impact on housing strategy other areas as well so I think there is a case perhaps to be made for having a more overarching view but how all these particular strands of land reform and land use integrate with each other and interplay so we can understand the importance of land reform in the context and how it contributes to economic development and housing fulfilling needs in terms of the agriculture sector and other areas as well so I do take that point I wouldn't necessarily say that there's been a complete lack of coherence you wouldn't expect me to say that but I think we have certainly got a clear focus now on looking at and reviewing the recommendations of a land reform review group identifying those that we can take forward there may be areas of the report that we particularly support but we still support the outcome that the land reform review group are trying to achieve and maybe find another way of doing so and I'm certainly welcoming the views of the committee if you have any views along those lines as well about specific recommendations that perhaps you think could be tweaked to be a better way of achieving the same result would certainly take that on board and be interested to hear them Thank you very much for being here Good morning Minister I've been talking about very much as a three stage process in this context of which the land reform itself is actually the third clearly that can only come after what I think the second which is a definitive legal register but stage one would seem to be an obvious apparent use ownership kind of register in my recollection as a city councillor in Dundee for a while we were already trying to build and I'm just wondering whether and this is not your portfolio I recognise but whether the government is exploring whether the databases actually already exist and it is plural in other words local authorities and possibly other organisations actually already possess I suspect a great deal of that non definitive register I'm just wondering whether somebody has explored how much of this information we really have got spread around to address Mr Don's question I should have when I spoke earlier should have continued that line of my point that there are lots and lots of different registers out there for different purposes and some of them have already been mentioned so the resources are out there to make a non definitive register it's about how it's brought together and in what timeframe we can do that but clearly it can be done more quickly we have to acknowledge though it's non definitive it creates greater transparency it doesn't necessarily deliver all the benefits of having a complete land register which should also be a goal that's sitting there in the background we should be working towards but yes it is being explored and we are looking at how it can be done Could I just caution about bringing things together they don't need to be brought together as long as you know where to find the information you want the idea of getting one register for the whole of Scotland just so we've got it is one I would suggest you don't need to follow to illustrate the point if you want to find out what land the Forestry Commission owns today you can go on to their website they hold a map and all their land is already on it so despite it not being on the land register it is visible to the public Just developing that point if I may about the non definitive register the minister talked earlier about stakeholders and indicated a positive response to this like the site of the Crown Estate but I'm wondering where NGOs like the National Trust for Scotland RSPB, the Scottish Wildlife Trust who do hold great care for the image that they have where they sit in this in terms of engagement and willingness to participate and beyond that in terms of public bodies I wonder what thought has been given to engagement with the MOD who are very substantial land owners in Scotland and presumably would be cooperative and it just strikes me that we could fairly quickly get to the point where we've got a fairly instructive non definitive register in good timeframes Indeed, Graham Day alludes to the point that I was making earlier on I believe there is an opportunity for, this is one and perhaps area where I think there's an opportunity for consensus I mean there are parts of obviously land reform and some of the recommendations where I believe there will be understandably differences of opinion about the way forward but I think it's in everybody's interest to have greater transparency and accountability for land ownership and if we can do it and as Mr Don described in the two-step process I think that's helpful certainly we've improved the understanding in the short term and over the 10 year period hopefully we will get to a point where we've got a complete register certainly we're keen to work with those land owners we recognise the opportunity when we have got large land owners such as the NGOs or indeed private land owners to get large blocks of Scotland registered in a reasonably speedy way it's not, I've got a caution though that I appreciate there's also a resource issue for registers of Scotland and how fast they can actually physically do that which clearly that's why we are consulting registers of Scotland, Mr Ewing and myself in terms of the practicalities of this but registers of Scotland believe it's doable and so we'll have its challenges but that we can do this and so we need to have an honest discussion about what resource it will take to do that but I agree with you wholeheartedly that if we can work with likes of RSVB, ESWT, NTS and others to register the land that will eat into the chunks and as to the MOD we haven't had any direct dialogue with them on this issue yet but I think it's a fair point and we should do to sound them out as to whether they're willing to to engage in this process constructively Jim Ewing Yes, just on an issue with IACS of course IACS covers most the farming land that is involved with coming out of culture policy and we'll see if that's still relevant after today's announcement I'm sure it will be but obviously have you seriously considered I mean Stephen's already mentioned it but seriously considered using that as a very easy system to maybe just have an extra box on that form rather than extra forms going out across Scotland I think community it's a very sensible suggestion to look at these options because if it avoids people having to do mapping twice or if there's existing maps there's ways in which we can work with the register to see what data is already provided and whether that's of sufficient quality to inform the process then I'm happy to look at that and certainly recommend that we do look at that obviously it's Mr Ewing's portfolio responsibility but we can pass that message back that that might be an opportunity and clearly within the portfolio we've got considerable expertise in the IACS system as you would expect and I can confirm there will be a common agricultural policy statement today so I don't think you have to worry about there not being a common agricultural policy provision in Scotland so we will I think take forward constructive proposals like that Mr Ewing as to how we can we can use existing information we don't want to create a situation which is overly bureaucratic for people who are going to avoid it I think that's a very sensible way to progress if it can be used by the register I've told the one part of it of course half of Scotland is of course tenant farmed and it would be there for the tenant farmer that was actually inputting that data but then there's a possibility where you have I suppose larger states which have many tenants to co-ordinate that in some way or at least to give them a guidance on what they need to do but we'll certainly take that positive suggestion forward and see if there's some way we can work with that Thanks I'd like to make a final point on this there was raised by witnesses at the committee that completing the mapping process for crofting does need some extra input to help people do that can we leave it with you that you will find some answers for that in due course because I guess that's got money implications I mean it's certainly community something that's exercising me here on a regular basis obviously we now have a mandatory register and people will have to register as they go through any regulated activity through the Crofting Commission so it will update as time goes on but clearly we don't want to take that to take many many years we'd rather reach a position where we had to complete a register for crofting as possible and I would just put in record we will come back to committee but I would put in record I welcome the very constructive approach that Registers of Scotland have taken to this issue and they've put in some of their own resource to help tackle the challenge so we'll come back with further detail Thank you that was the first of our 10 questions and we can't afford to spend as much on each of them or else we'll be here tomorrow can we member members and ministers we've quite a lot of ground to cover so the ownership of land Claire Baker Thank you, convener and the review group looked to trying to address the issue of offshore ownership and improved traceability and accountability does the minister accept the need for this and can identify what the difficulties are with the current system when it comes to identifying ownership the point just briefly is that the report also said that this however the proposal they put on the table which is about a legal entity having to be registered within a member state wouldn't necessarily address the issue of beneficial ownership maybe the minister would like to comment on that also well clearly the land form review group saw this as a very important issue and I think if we try and understand why it's been raised initially before looking at the specific proposal it goes back to the issue of transparency convener and just the ability of people to know and to be accountable obviously the owner to be accountable for their actions in terms of the performance as a land owner so that's what's driving this whether it's the ultimately what we will go for in terms of a solution I cannot say at the stage because we are going to have to listen to views about the practicalities of it and consult on it but I do certainly support the land reform review group's sense of direction and they're trying to get an outcome where there's greater transparency and who owns an accountability obviously in terms of we don't want to have a situation where there perhaps is a complete lack of understanding who owns the land and perhaps maybe an overseas owner in some case it may be obviously a domestic owner in other situations that they are not accountable for their actions but I understand the points that are being made about the land reform review group about the legal entity, EU legal entity is to give a legal persona to the owner and to have that accountable within the European legal context so it's one of the areas that we're interested in looking at to improve transparency and we will certainly come back in due course with our thoughts on this I ask the issue about beneficial owners I don't know whether I can ask Stephen to comment on that I think there are lots of challenges around how you address this issue of transparency and of course addressing the issue around beneficial owners is more challenging than having a clear accountable person for our argument state within the EU which is what they're proposing you could argue the way a country like Denmark tackles this is by saying if you own farmland you have to be a natural person you can't own farmland in Denmark being a legal person so there are different ways to do these sorts of questions and it's certainly something that I think we should the objective here really for government would be to explore the intent behind the recommendation or review group made as opposed to focus on the specific recommendation they're making to think how do you do this Over an early stage in terms of the announcement around the bill can you say if the bill will look to the constitution will look to address this issue and accept that the solution brought forward by the review group might not be the one the government would like to support the government didn't support it came forward at the land registration bill to bring that up again this solution and the government didn't support it at that point but will the trying to address the issue of transparency and accountability be covered by the bill and also back to the land registration bill there was an amendment that came forward on beneficial ownership which at the time the minister said could be in some way built into regulations around the land register it could be a condition of the land register I don't know if the minister is able today to say more about that or if something could look into a bit more detail I'm happy to come back to the committee on this it's a really good example I suppose of a number of the recommendations of the land reform review group don't necessarily fall within the rural affairs environment portfolio and this is clearly a good example of it the point that's been fairly made about the previous land register bill as a land registration bill has I suppose demonstrated in it that Fergus Ewing was leading on that bill so in this case I need to work with colleagues like Fergus Ewing to understand what the ramifications are whether there's any scope for taking on board these ideas as they've been forward by land reform review group but what I would say in answer to the other part of the question absolutely we want to address and whatever proposals we bring forward that we address the issue about transparency and accountability whether this is ultimately a solution we go for I can't say at this stage only three weeks into having had the report but you know and clearly we've got a lot of thinking to do about the package if you like of measures that you would bring forward in a bill but certainly something we're interested to deliver to make sure that Scotland has a transparent land ownership system that people can understand I mean I've had experience as a community councillor in the past and I've gone back to seems like hell of a long time ago excuse me if she's in that language computer when I was a community councillor in Coburn's Bath and trying to find the owner of a building that was falling into dereliction it was extremely difficult took six months in fact to find out lots of googling and lots of looking through various documents and actually it was congratulated by ultimately the chap I found for having found him and he was a member of an exiled member of a former royal family in Europe so it just goes to show that it is extremely difficult for community groups and people who need to find out that in this case in the chap's interest his building was falling down we're going to be falling down and we were trying to help him save that building and even if it's in the land or in his interest for you to make contact it's very difficult for you to do so in many cases so we do need to have a more transparent system we do need to have a complete register so these issues are no longer a problem in future and we also need to have accountability in terms of legal and tax issues and so forth so I think these are very important issues and we will obviously reflect on the report and come back with proposals many of us had to have experience of community councils some of them not obviously where you were but we indeed community councillor so I'm not criticizing community councils so was I yes indeed but Jim Hulme thank you very much when the review group were in front of us I sort of pushed regarding any legal entity would that be individuals that they recommended it would be also pushed regarding would it boil down to individual building plots there for anybody from outside the EU wouldn't be allowed to buy a building plot and I used the example of somebody that's been to New Zealand on coming back and maybe has a New Zealand passport they said that would be the case and also mentioned about retrospective people that actually own land already and would that have any ramifications for those sort of individuals so a couple of questions there well I mean I would clearly just remind the committee that this is a recommendation from the land form review group rather than the government but we are looking at it as I understand it the desire is not to stop people from outside the European Union owning land but to make sure there's greater transparency about who it is and to make sure they have a legal persona in some shape or form in the European Union that is technically owning the land so that either as Mr Prathornau has said be a natural person or indeed a legal person as you define it in terms of a company so I think there's just a desire from what I can understand to make sure that there is greater transparency and accountability for those that owning land and there are other measures that the land form review group have recommended which we may or may not take forward about the extent to which an individual from of any description whether they're from Scotland or elsewhere should own land in Scotland so it's got to be seen in the context of a package of measures that the land form review group have put forward but my understanding is that they're just trying to ensure improved transparency and accountability but not to limit the nationalities of those who own land in Scotland Moving on to public land ownership and community acquisition cost Dave Thompson to lead Good morning minister I hope you enjoyed the community land Scotland conference on Saturday which we both attended and convener, I have to say that the NHS cloning unit isn't working very well because Dave Thompson looks nothing like me if I could just pick up I was very pleased actually to hear this morning minister you reaffirming your acceptance of the view that land you know is a finite resource to be used in relation to the public interest and for the common good because I think that is an absolutely paramount sort of principle that I think we all have to bear in mind as we go through the process of looking at this report and implementing various recommendations and so on Can I say that in terms of the Crownist state it's a reserved issue there have been many many reports over the last number of years running right through from 2007 the Crownist state in Scotland report the Kalman commission recommended devolution of Crownist state there was recommendations from the Scotland Bill committee consensus across all the parties in Scotland about devolving the Crownist state it hasn't happened nothing has actually happened Scottish affairs committee just recently reiterated its view that it should be devolved so first of all I would like just to ask if you agree that it should be devolved and secondly how do you think we can achieve this given the consensus in Scotland over the last seven years and more and yet there is no including that Westminster is going to accede to that request Well I think Dave Thompson MSP rather to my right has definitely struck a very important issue which I fully recognise is shared I think around the Parliamentary chamber by colleagues from all parties that where the Crownist state in Scotland takes its direction from Westminster or Hollywood we believe firmly I think collectively in this Parliament that and ministers have certainly made this point timing again that the administration the Crownist state in Scotland should be Welsh ministers and be accountable to the Scottish Parliament for its activities in Scotland we're not asking for Crownist state activities outside of Scotland clearly it is regrettable that that has been ignored that request has been ignored to date there have been obviously as Dave Thompson has identified being an opportunity in the Scotland Bill 2012 to have done so which was missed and I'm sure that was something that probably all of us in this room regret wouldn't happen it would be remiss to me not to point out that clearly a vote for independence would mean that the Crownist state would be devolved to Scotland and that is one vehicle by which the people of Scotland can secure that I'm sure my colleagues from opposition parties will have their own view about how that can be achieved so I'm not necessarily saying I speak for them but certainly from the SNP point of view the Scottish Government point of view clearly a vote for independence would see Crownist state in Scotland I put on record on my speech at the weekend to Community Land Scotland this is not a criticism of the individuals in the organisation who are performing their function and trying to generate revenues for the Crownist state to be given to use by the public we just believe that that should be managed and accountable to the people of Scotland and obviously we have a desire to devolve it to Scotland and then obviously pass devolution of that to communities as well if we can do and clearly we'll be hoping to set out our plans in that in due course Thanks Minister if I can just follow on convener The big concern about the Crownist state of course is that states in the report its whole purpose is to maintain and enhance the value of the estate and the return obtained to it from it in other words the sole purpose of the Crownist state commissioners is to get as much money as possible out of their properties and assets and for sure to feed in to the treasury which isn't going to help communities because that's not their purpose their purpose is to make money and we've seen plenty examples around Scotland where public works are going ahead but it's a commercial rate that the Crownist state charge I'm pleased that you mentioned the further devolution because that's something that I'm very very interested in because the report does state very clearly they feel it should be a two-stage process that Scotland should get control of the Crownist state or their power should be lifted when it comes to the Scottish ministers and the report also very interestingly mentions the Lerwick declaration where the First Minister and Wester Niles Orkney and Shetland councils have agreed various things and that according to the report here appears to demonstrate a commitment to the decentralisation of Crownist state commission responsibilities if they are devolved so you've confirmed that you believe that would be the right way to do it can you let us know at the moment whether you mentioned local communities whether it would be via local authorities or local development trusts or do you have any idea at the moment just how that might be achieved I mean a difficult position on this one convener and I have a good idea as to how we might do this but for reasons I hope Mr Thompson will understand I'm not at liberty to divulge the approach that we are taking at this point there are as Dave Thompson identified the Lerwick declaration there's work going on between both governments and the island communities at the moment to discuss the implications of independence which the Government advocates or indeed the no vote option as to what the opportunities are for the island authorities and there's been obviously discussion on that which is in the public domain that the Crownist state has been one of the items that has been discussed so I'm in a difficult position I can't I'm afraid convener as much as I'd like to help Mr Thompson understand what the issues are what I can state is though that we clearly want revenues of the Crownist state that are generated to benefit local communities and to make the maximum possible contribution to sustaining local communities around Scotland and fragile parts of the country where Crownist state revenues are obviously potentially going to grow significantly in the future both with the growth of renewable sector offshore and indeed onshore in some cases but also the aquaculture sector which is the important source of revenue to the Crownist state so these are issues that are of great relevance clearly to areas such as Dave Thompson's constituency and I fully recognise that and I hope in not too distant future you will have great clarity on this I'm very pleased about that minister that local communities all over Scotland but particularly in the Highlands and Islands where we've got an awful lot of the coast, the vast bulk of it I would suggest can look forward to getting control over over those assets and start making decisions to benefit the local communities can I maybe just move on quickly convener to the issue of state aid and the interpretation of the current manual rules etc and the aversion or the apparent aversion to risk that is shown by those who are interpreting the rules which gives us all sorts of problems in relation to helping community developments can you maybe just tell us a wee bit about what your views are on turning that sort of negative view of state aid into something a bit more positive and helpful which would allow us to move on It's a hugely important issue I addressed it at the community of land Scotland conference because we have had some challenges in terms of state aid particularly in relation to the national forest land scheme where we have been keen to encourage community ownership of woodlands in Scotland clearly there is an issue of interpretation here about state aid we want to see state aid being used as a positive thing potentially as Dave Thompson has alluded to our understanding of it to facilitate good community projects ones which don't distort trade and inter-EU trade where you have a community project which has perhaps got a focus on improving the amenity of an area it's not going to interact with commercial timber extraction or the commercial timber market where we have to take a view as perhaps where there is a community project where there is an element of it which is a commercial forestry operation an element of selling that timber on to the market as to whether it's realistic to suggest when that is happening that it's actually going to distort European Union wide trade and the vast majority of cases I'm confident we could demonstrate it won't but we need to do it on a case by case basis I think rather than have a one size fits all approach so we are taking the view as we have done recently with recent awards to national forest land scheme that we are satisfied that those projects do not distort trade within the European Union and therefore we have supported them on that basis so it's using the state aids policy intelligently and taking into account local circumstances to make sure we can facilitate projects where clearly they have significant community benefit in terms of improving the resilience of a local community its economic future perhaps environmental improvements but at the same time it's not going to distort competition in the commercial timber market or any other sector so that's the nature of the debate we have to have about state aid there's been a lot of work going on if I may come here very briefly bringing Steven Parthenaya because I know causes of time but I know Steven has been looking closely at this issue The minister has covered most of the ground here the only thing I'd add is part of moving forward is very much about communities as well actually helping communities understand state aids better because they need to be in a position where they understand what they're doing can articulate it well and test whether what they're doing should be subject to it or not I think that dialogue between communities and funders will be an important part of breaking the historic deadlock we've had in this area around certain projects going forward The report as well recommends that the Scottish public finance manuals need for which prohibits the transfer of public land at less than market value should be reviewed and I just wonder if the minister could let us know in principle if he's in favour where it's in the public interest to transfer public assets to local communities at less than its market value this is something I mean obviously we have a great sympathy with this issue because clearly we have a public policy objective where we want to see public land being used by communities for ownership there's been a lot of focus in this debate about developing community ownership on the implications for private land owners but we clearly have a strategy as a Government and I think it's the right thing to do to try and encourage communities to take on ownership of whether it's arped estate, crofted crofting estate or indeed national forest estate as well other opportunities to we want to see communities have high aspirations for their future to take ownership of the land forward and it can be a bit of a barrier to us we end up paying ourselves effectively through the land fund in some cases to buy public land and I don't think that's an ideal situation to be far more satisfactory in some ways if we could give the land a low price or one pound or whatever to make sure that the community gets the benefit of the land and the public good common good is served in that way and it satisfies public policy interest as well without putting a financial barrier up but the public finance manual is being reviewed by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance as one of the areas that's obviously outside our direct portfolio responsibilities but we have put these points in the mix and colleague Stephen Pathan-Ir is engaging with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance's team on these issues if there's any supplementary I can ask Mr Pathan-Ir to answer them but I can assure Dave Thompson that this is under review and we are looking at it from our portfolio perspective to try and enable more community ownership if possible Coming on to community ownership Nigel Thorne The report that we're discussing suggests that there might be a large menu of rights for communities a right to register an interest preempt the purchase of land the right to actually request to buy public land a request for a compulsory purchase order something about the prospect of a pulsary sale order in appropriate circumstances and indeed in some even the right to buy clearly there are restrictions and criteria across all of those I'm just wondering if I could ask you your reaction to that general idea of a menu of rights The first thing to that Mr Dawn is that through the process of the land form review group report being prepared we very much kept the independence I respected that so I didn't direct what they were looking at we did engage with them as they were developing their ideas with a view to the fact that the community empowerment bill was coming forward trying to get some early feedback as the things they might think need to be tackled in terms of the existing land form act 2003 in terms of community registration community right to buy provisions so as you may have noticed in terms of the consultation on the community empowerment bill we did float some ideas which came out of that so we have tried to reflect if you like in the consultation on the bill the areas in which there was early knowledge if you like that from the land form review group that things could be tidied up and streamlined and also looked at some of the issues in terms of preemption and right to buy so as I say I'm kind of tied up and I can't reveal in advance Mr Mackay's introduction of the bill itself precisely what is in there but we have already consulted on a number of these issues and we'll see in due course those which we are taking forward in the bill What I guess I'd like to explore and push you into areas where you feel you can't go and I respect that is I suppose the thrust of this goes right the way through to a community quite simply having the right under certain circumstances to say we want to buy that and being entitled to do that under some fairly restrictive circumstances now is that an end point which you see as acceptable in the general principle of things? Well clearly we think that there are a case to be made in circumstances for community to have a right to buy. We've obviously got existing provisions which are benefiting those in the crofting estate in terms of crofting right to buy which has been exercised in cases and we are continually developing a pipeline of projects and all I can say in advance of the bill being lodged I'm very sympathetic to the point where we need to provide opportunities but fairly though I have to stress that to those who already own land fairly to allow communities to take forward their aspirations where there are particular challenges for them in terms of maybe access to land for housing, economic development perhaps environmental improvements where that's justified or needed so there are circumstances in which the public interest is served as defined by the land form of UKIP in terms of community ownership taking place so ministers always have I should stress ministers in the process always have the ability to review an application and to obviously approve or not approve depending on whether it's serving the public interest and passing the tests that are already set out in the existing land reform act 2003 so not to say it would be unfettered but we are interested in that area Alex Ferguson I seek a point of clarification minister good morning to you by the way you mentioned in your opening statement the possibility of bringing forward measures at stage 2 of a bill and I've no idea whether this aspect of what we're talking about is what you're relating to but given the fact that a number of stakeholders in evidence to us already written and oral have pointed to what they see as a failure or a lack of being consulted with particularly in the second part of the land review groups exercise and fairly strong feelings that they should have been can you give us an assurance that the government will not introduce anything at stage 2 of a bill that has not been fully consulted on by all the stakeholders involved well if I can first of all convener challenge the position that's been taken by some that there wasn't any consultation in stage 2 where the I mean I can bring in Dave Thompson on this point shortly but where we have seen the land reform review group having perhaps a need for greater clarity on what was being submitted in the stage 1 evidence perhaps they have gone to individual groups for clarification on points that they needed that degree of clarity so they have had discussions at the vast majority of stakeholders I understand have pointed to this in response to some of the criticism and said actually we felt that the stage 2 process there was consultation where it was required I appreciate there are one of two stakeholders who feel they weren't adequately consulted and disappointed with the content of the report but I think it's wrong to say that there wasn't consultation where the land reform review group felt it was necessary to supplement their knowledge or to clarify points that have been made by those submitting that they have done so but if I can maybe briefly just I appreciate Mr Ferguson wants to come back but if I can bring in Dave Thompson just to expand on that point the two stages of the group's work were from the beginning identified as the first phase being the collection of the evidence to try and give them a broad base and the second was primarily focused on the end goal, the report itself by that midway stage the group had some ideas of the topics they wanted to explore further the ones that needed clarification on and that's where they focused the energy over and above speaking to particular organisations or individuals for points of clarification they also had their team of 13 advisers who had experience and good knowledge of particular areas for example in housing, planning etc so they used those as well to develop their ideas further and to point them in other directions of other individuals and organisations who could speak to so it was a more focused consultation if you like in the second phase on particular points that the group wanted to put in the report it was inevitable given that the width and the topic in the remit that the group had they were never going to be able to collect all the evidence on all the topics from all the people who wanted to say anything so that's the reason for the focused reflection phase 2 I understand that I might not agree that I understand it but my point is that if the Government was to bring in an amendment at stage 2 to a bill which might impact on for instance the Scottish Mulland group and it's quite possible that a community right to buy might impact on that the interests of that group now they specifically have said that they were not consulted on that all I'm asking the Minister to do is to give us an assurance that he would not introduce something at stage 2 of a bill that would not have been fully consulted on but which might have a considerable impact on one of the main stakeholders to be affected sorry, apologies to Mr Ferguson I didn't address that point in my answer I was dealing with the other part of his question I'm going to give an assurance that we're bringing forward the bill, I can't see what's in the bill but clearly the provisions that will be presented at stage 1 of the bill have all been consulted on so the significant things having been consulted on I think the significance of having a later land reform bill offers us the opportunity for those issues which we feel there needs to be consultation, more work done in some cases some evaluation of evidence that has been presented and the opportunity for taking things forward that we believe would deserve proper parliamentary scrutiny and consultation I don't have in mind a huge number of stage 2 amendments that we have already considering we obviously reflect on some of the points that the committee may and other stakeholders make in response to the provisions that we bring forward at stage 1 and we may have to make stage 2 amendments in a normal way but I take the point that Mr Ferguson makes and that's why I think it's important to have a land reform bill that allows us a second chance to put forward a considered view and I do stress this, a considered view from all sides of the recommendations of the land reform review group I hope people engage in it constructively they look for the opportunities for consensus which I'm keen to build and I am proposing to do a programme of stakeholder engagement on the land reform review group's report to try and get feedback from all parties on the views I'm certainly welcoming the committee's examination of the recommendations and your views but obviously need to engage wider groups outside of Parliament on their views as you have been doing to get direct view from them as to where they are very supportive of things where they might be supportive of things in the report and where they perhaps have concerns so given undertaking Mr Ferguson to colleagues around this room that stakeholder engagement clearly is going to be very important as we build towards having a land reform bill and understand what we can't take forward in that. We're in the middle of question four and a half at the moment, Claire Baker. As I take a different view and encourage the minister to see the community empowerment bill as a possible vehicle for land reform and I also feel that that bill has been consulted on for almost two years now. There has been a lot of engagement from stakeholders around community ownership and I'd hope that we I think it would be a sensible option to look at that especially when you think about a land reform bill how broad this report is everything is going to try to get into a land reform bill if we could actually spread some of that and do something a bit quicker because there are concerns about timescales but sorry to take up time but the thing I wanted to ask about was public interest definition and the minister mentioned that in his first response there was some discussion last week about how robust that is or some people have concerns about the robustness of that would be? I certainly share Claire Baker's view the first point of her point that we have had a lot of consultation on community ownership issues I think actually there's quite a reasonable degree of consensus about the support if you like even from those in the land ownership community at the moment the private sector who are supportive of streamlining the process it would benefit potentially landowners as well to have a quicker determination or easier determination of community ownership right to buy application or registration so they have certainty so I think there's interest in all sides of actually having a streamlining process so I think I'm optimistic that we can deliver quite significant measures in the bill as it will be presented and then we've got a second opportunity to take forward other measures which perhaps need more work to prepare the case and to understand its impact on cells for the work needs to be done but on the issue so it's the second point if you can just make a public interest yet sorry clearly there is an element of subjectivity in any definition and what we need to do is get a degree of consensus about this but I would put on record I do believe that there are circumstances where the public interest isn't necessarily being served where perhaps people have an inability perhaps because of a very localised monopoly to get land for local social housing or for facilitating an economic development project might be something to do with just getting land for a grow your own produce and having allotments but there have been very good examples where landowners have collaborated to do these things too so it's not true to say it doesn't happen in every case but clearly there are circumstances where communities aspirations are being thwarted and therefore we need to look at whether it's in the public interest to allow that to continue so there is a strong steer from the land reform review group about what they feel to be public interest we need to reflect on that and come forward with our own response in terms of the land reform bill and perhaps that's something we could if not for everyone's purposes satisfy them in terms of a definition but we could perhaps get a consensus on what public interest would be in this situation and I'd certainly welcome our committee members' view on that and we'll listen to their views We've got Graham and then Claudia Thank you very briefly Minister, can I look at the situation with land that already belongs to communities in the form of common good there's a very good section in the report covering this subject and it's interesting to note and estimate that the funds held across Scotland total £300 million so this is a significant issue the recommendations are probably best summed up at the end when they talk about a system in place that adequately safeguards and appropriately manages common good and they talk about the need for a new statutory framework and a duty to have a common good register I just wonder if you can shed some light on the Government's reaction to these particular recommendations It was not without a sense of irony I think one cheeky tweet that was sent to me the day before I went to the community land Scotland conference I was at the Hoit common riding and that's where I'll write others and you know the celebration of riding the community's boundaries if you like on that day it's a very important issue one of the problems that I suppose that there has been in terms of the lack of transparency of ownership of land I mean I've been counted again sorry to fall back in personal experience but as a community councillor again there was a wind farm application in there which impacted on the old eight in common and none of us were informed about it because nobody knew who the trustees were and had been so long since there had been any contact with the trustees of the common land we'd missed the planning process completely so there are clearly issues both procedurally to understand the engagement in the planning process where there's a common good issue and there's a common land implication but also as you say quite rightly the revenues and the funds that are associated and how they are used to the common good which is what they were intended for so it's very welcome the land form of the group's examination of this point but it comes back to the point about the public interest I suppose in terms of the definition of that the merit of the recommendations in terms of a particular issue it's intended to address of course but it's important that we see common good in the context the overall pattern of land ownership the model as it emerges but it's certainly a very important and motive issue I know from personal experience in places like Selkirk and Hoyk that people feel that they've lost control of the common good the local authority is perhaps the custodian of the funds and they don't feel that they have a full say in how it's managed but we certainly have to get transparency about what the common good land is where it is and of course it was intended which is to deliver the public interest on the common good Good morning minister and to both your colleagues as well I hope seamlessly we're going to move into the issue of the agencies to support communities and oversee governance and I would prefer that by stressing my support for the direction of travel for the broader diversification of land in Scotland and the support for community empowerment the land reform review group stressed and I quote the integrated program of land reform measures that were needed and in your opening remarks you also referred to the quote to that spirit I believe and the land reform review group also recommends that the Scottish Government should establish a community land agency within Government with a range of powers particularly in facilitating negotiation between land owners and communities to promote support and deliver a significant increase in local community land ownership in Scotland and so I just particularly wanted to ask you about before asking about the other agency as well about the scope of that in view of the fact that Nylans has had a social remit I had Nylans Enterprise had a social remit and as Minister that hasn't happened in South Scotland which we both represent and indeed in other parts of Scotland and whether you can reassure me that there will be a focus across Scotland for the support which some have said doesn't happen so much in the south but I would quite strongly disagree with that I mean I think I certainly have a great sympathy with the case that we need to make sure there's if you like an aftercare for communities that obviously are fortunate after being in the Highlands Downs area perhaps because of the specific remit that Highlands Downs Enterprise have which as Chloe Bemish has identified does include the social remit they have the freedom if you like as an organisation in terms of statute to support communities in not only building up their business plan but also thereafter in terms of how they support them in implementing it and taking forward the economic development aspects of it perhaps but making sure there are sound organisations that have good business planning and they can give them that kind of aftercare support so I think there's a very much better prospect in some ways because of that for organisations that are taking forward projects in the Highlands Downs Enterprise to have that kind of aftercare I do feel a lot of sympathy for organisations that are elsewhere in Scotland and we do want to make sure that community land ownership is something that's taken forward outside the Highlands Downs area it's clearly got very significant cultural and social impact in the Highlands Downs for historic reasons but also because of the sparsier population community ownership can be a very important vehicle for furthering economic development in that region but we also want a wide range of projects to happen elsewhere in Scotland whether it's in the south of Scotland or Aberdeenshire or Angus or the cities indeed and so therefore there's a limitation in terms of Scottish Enterprise's current remit and I recognise the challenge that Land Reform has put down it's something that I know Mr Ewing is aware of as Enterprise Minister the ultimate would be for Mr Ewing and Mr Swinney to bring forward proposals if they agree with the recommendations to change the remit of Scottish Enterprise in that way and that would require statutory measure to primary legislation to change that as I understand it Claudia Beamish I think you were going to talk about the other if that answered your question Thank you very much I sort of put that in really from the perspective of broader Scotland beyond the Highlands and Islands I appreciate that response Thank you I'd like to get it clear from the Minister in reply to us whether in fact Scottish Enterprise could have adopted the social remit but chose not to because it's my understanding from the past that that is so from previous committees and I may be wrong but I think that their choice of the way in which they work is the important part here I may be incorrect and we can come back to this point my understanding to date has been that there would be a change in statutory provisions to enable that to happen but I thought that Mr Stephen Pathranis had the ability to I would I think what the Minister has just described is correct I think there would need to be a statutory change in how in the remit given to Scottish Enterprise but I think I would also stress again the review group here they identified an outcome that they're interested they've also identified a possible way of delivering that outcome and I think again we should focus on the outcome and ask ourselves a question if we support the outcome what's the best way of delivering that outcome is their proposed solution the best way are there other ways that same outcome could be delivered so I think that's an important and I generally put that against every recommendation because I think it's important to look at the best practical way of making things happen Minister in terms of the agencies that were put forward by land form review group as you'll know of course the group also considers as well as the community land agency that there's a need and I quote for a single body with responsibility for understanding and monitoring the system governing ownership and management of Scotland's land and recommending changes in the public interest and also that the group recommends that the Scottish government should a Scottish land and property commission and evidence to the committee as I understand from last week I wasn't able to attend last week it was largely supportive of these recommendations there were some concerns expressed about costs involved and could I ask you Minister for your views on these recommendations and would three separate bodies be required and how would they be resourced I think just because the nature the question that Claudia Beamish has set out I think that shows the scale of the challenge here we have and I'm not going to gain say what the land form review group has said in this respect we're very sympathetic that we do need to look at the what appropriate architecture and the point that Stephen has just made about the outcomes that are being sought as a very appropriate one here if we take it for granted that we want to make an understanding of exactly what community ownership there is out there how we help perhaps increase that in line with government priorities and parliaments seeming will to do so then we need to understand what sort of architecture does there need to then be to support that process to ensure the proper monitoring of progress against targets to facilitate where necessary and resolve disputes where necessary the land reform review group has made some interesting all of these aspects whether it's from a community land agency to the commission and indeed the one we have taken forward already in terms of a working group we're beginning to build up in terms of looking at how we achieve the 1 million acre target so I think it's early days for us to rush to conclusion about what we will do in terms of a commission or whether we'll have a community land agency but what I can give an undertaking to Claudia Beamish as we are interested in looking at these sort of ideas and as my colleague has identified whether they are the right way to achieve the outcome that we we agree the land reform review group we should try and achieve which is more community ownership and we believe that's a good way of delivering the common good and the public interest but we need to work at how we do that and what kind of architecture we need but because it's such a complex area we will need more time to determine what's the best way of achieving that and we need to listen to views of stakeholders as well on the practicalities I'll give very briefly about the concerns that were expressed about cost that's a significant factor here we need to understand what if any financial ramifications there may be clearly we've been trying to reduce the number of public agencies that we are funding and therefore we have to understand if there's a rationale it has to be a pretty good business case to be put as to why we create a new one but we don't have a full understanding yet of what the financial ramifications be, what kind of resource, what kind of skills you would need and from where so I think it's one of these ones unfortunately I think we will need some time to think through the recommendation but what I will say is we're very sympathetic to the outcomes that the land reform review group are trying to achieve which is to facilitate community ownership monitor it, understand its impacts and the benefits it brings to the public interest thank you a brief point on this one it is convener and I think it's been partly answered but I just want to really put on record a concern I have here I'm on record as supporting community ownership I would like to see more of it in the south of Scotland but I dislike the element of compulsion that is within the recommendation I'm just genetically opposed to that but the point I wanted to make is that I believe community benefit, community ownership and the decisions surrounding all of that are very much local things there are different issues in different communities as I'm sure the minister would agree but when I look at four new rights and three new agencies to oversee and guide all of that I see anything but local I see a very central bureaucratic operation I know they don't want it to be but I can't see anything that stops it being and I just wonder how you can reassure me that that wouldn't be the case whatever we decide ultimately I would say that in respecting the point that Alex Ferguson made I know he is supportive of Malogalloway and other community ownership projects but we have an opportunity to strengthen the support and the drive from the centre in terms of giving the support that communities need and advice the standardisation of procedures and the advice so that it's a consistent quality and depth that communities need and to facilitate because in various areas we are aware that various different parts of funding where there's demand led measures whether it's for funds or applications for things that some communities are less capable of in terms of having the internal capacity to put forward so we need to have some degree of professionalism in terms of supporting communities that need to come forward so there's an argument for having some central resource in that respect but I do take the point about having local understanding and having flexibility at a local level but the process as it stands we landed for about 2003 there's a very significant element of local consultation on community registration and right to buy the community's obviously having to have a robust business case which takes account of in this case the public interest so as a minister I'm having to determine one of the factors is it in the public interest and take the point that Claire Baker made earlier on about the definition and that may evolve over time but you have various safeguards in place which ensure that we take a view as to whether the public interest is being served in a registration or a right to buy and that takes account of local views I'm sure as I know from correspondence with Mr Ferguson not every consultee is always happy with the outcome but there is a consultation process there and it's for a good reason so we take account of local arguments and local concerns in making a decision and so any procedures that go forward will have to have some degree of safeguard so it's not done on a whim as some people have suggested it's done with good understanding of what the case has been made and it's in the interests of the community group if they are taking ownership to have a strong business case that has been subject to scrutiny so it will stack up and that they will have a viable future that gives them a sustainable future as an organisation I'm sure we'll have the opportunity to discuss this further thank you we will indeed have time to discuss our next five questions in fact about six minutes each so I'll be putting a guillotine on questions and answers in order that we get through this because of course this is a first stab at the process which is developing very much and I realise that some parts of what we ask soon will require slightly longer but others are going to have to remember to curtail their introductions and the answers please so land development and housing Crème des I won't rehearse every aspect of this but the review group does make several recommendations in this area accepting that the minister doesn't have all of this in his remit I wonder what discussions he might have had with the housing minister regarding the recommendations and how he proposes to take them forward that would include the possible reintroduction of the rural home ownership grants scheme and I wonder what specific action he might be able to take in his remit to address concerns in the areas of land, banking and the cost of building plots for example in terms of the discussions that are taking place there has been a close degree of engagement between officials developing the community empowerment bill and colleagues in housing and planning clearly Mr Mackay is leading on the bill, the lead minister for the bill and therefore has had a close interest in the issues such as land banking and those kinds of points that have been made through the consultation so I can't say what's in the bill but Mr Day has been close engagement with colleagues in housing and planning and indeed my own portfolio interests in terms of the community assets and land team so we have had good joint working between officials I haven't directly discussed myself with Ms Burgess those provisions because Derek Mackay is the lead minister for the bill but we can come back to the committee with information on what engagement has taken place and on the specific point about the rural housing grants we can get a response to Mr Day on that point as well if that would be helpful convener. Can I develop two points very briefly the review talked about the need for the introduction of longer and more secure tenancies in the private rented sector now the minister like many of us around this table represents a rural area and will be aware of the particular issues concerning estate tenancies not necessarily tied tenancies where the relationship is quite unique between the land owner and the landlord and the tenant and very often estate tenants find themselves having invested in the properties at the end of the day have no more security than anybody else I wonder if you might be able to comment on whether we should be able to do something about that and also the issue again in rural areas with housing plots perfored all over the countryside with derelict properties on them is there not an opportunity to bring those houses couldn't be developed because they're not in any fit state to be rebuilt and that would I would suggest tackle the issue we have in rural areas where almost inevitably when a development is suggested in a settlement there is local opposition to that housing development yet we all need no we need more rural housing so I just wonder briefly if you could touch on those two points Firstly to acknowledge it's a hugely significant issue I mean if I can put it on record that affects us all every one of us here in land of form issues because we all require housing and even if ultimately our only aspiration in life is to own a house and have a wee garden somewhere that might be the full extent of the land ownership aspirations that a member of the public might have but certainly there are all alternatives clearly rented properties, private rented properties that are particularly important in rural areas where there's quite often less provision from social housing providers but the ownership situation is such that the land is all privately owned and it's difficult to secure social housing opportunities but what we want to do I can put on record is definitely use the land form process to make sure that communities can fulfil their aspirations for housing where they need it clearly I'm aware that I feel like the contradictory views that I've been from stakeholders about the issue, about the length of tenancies certainly we need to try and improve the degree of certainty and ability people have to invest in a property that ultimately would be in the interest of the landowner as well I would have thought to have people investing and maintaining well the property if that's part of the lease conditions so while we haven't got a definitive view I can tell Mr Day today what I can say is some of these aspects are likely to be addressed in the forthcoming community empowerment bill but I can't say in what way unfortunately it's certainly an area that we're conscious of being a barrier to fulfilling communities aspirations and indeed the aspirations of individuals in many cases I look forward to seeing the bill Magnus McDonald Thanks convener, good morning Minister, I was pleased to see in the review groups report the call for a vibrant self-build sector for housing in rural areas and actually brought the attention of the committee and the stakeholder panel last week the Out Island Home initiative which has asked architects to design an affordable two-bedroom starter home suitable for the Hebrides and suitable for further extension later on it's easy to build and cheap to heat and to be in a walk-in condition for about £100,000 and I believe the self-build cost is sitting around £70,000 I believe there were 50 architects entered the competition which is a healthy amount and it was narrowed down to six finalists it was Tom Morton of architects from Cooper winning the competition now it was so many architects keen to get involved in the rural housing initiative what do you think still needs to be done to ensure that communities can fulfil their wishes to ensure that there are affordable and social housing available in rural areas I certainly identified in the speech that I gave on Saturday two aspects of this one is certainly important of the point that Mr Day has just been making in terms of housing sector and the fact that we have opportunities in rural areas for self-builds I have just pointed out to the community land Scotland conference in my speech that for those community ownership projects that have been taken forward 141 plots that have been created in those the argument sometimes is put that community ownership is taking away private ownership opportunities actually in this case they have created opportunities for self-build projects I think over half or around about half of them have already been started so this is an opportunity in many cases for stimulation of the local self-build sector obviously that's going to be then feeding through into the work for architects local construction contractors and generate local employment in terms of construction sector jobs that might not happen in every case put on record we need to make sure obviously that's why it's important to have an assessment of the business case for community ownership to make sure it's robust that it actually will add value rather than damage the economic performance of the area so in most cases clearly they have been very robust business cases and that's why they've been able to proceed so we've got an opportunity through that vehicle clearly we're looking at some of the recommendations the land form review group have made around provision for housing and land for development for housing as being a way of stimulating that so I think you know we have already seen some success in community ownership being a vehicle to stimulate self-build sector and I would hope that as community ownership expands up to the 1 million acre target those opportunities come and that's why we can be confident not only will it aid community ownership but can also enhance private sector opportunities as well for private smaller landowners to gain access to land okay thank you and to further streamline the process it's good that you've undertaken to work with the housing minister to ensure that the issue is streamlined I certainly give that undertaking and because of the close engagement on the community empowerment bill we've got a good opportunity to discuss these issues next sections on the pattern of rural land ownership and Alec Ferguson's going to be convener and obviously one of the sort of headline grabbing parts of this report was that there should be a cap on the amount of land owned and I don't think today is the right place to get into how much is too much and whether there should be a cap other than I found Andy Whiteman's statement last week that nobody should own more than 1% of Scotland fascinating because if Andy Whiteman would be happy with a potential situation where 100 people could own the whole of Scotland I would be very surprised but that is a potential outcome of his proposal but I guess there will be room to discuss all that that's side of the issue later on but I wonder if the minister agrees with the land reform review group statement that ownership is the key determinant of how land is used because I think a lot of people would argue and I'm certainly sympathetic in fact that actually it's the type and quality of the land that is the key determinant of how it's used rather than ownership clearly I recognise that quality of land will inevitably have an impact on what land can be used for that's a fair point we also have though to recognise that and I've put it on record and I hope it was done in a way which was not meant to be confrontational but if I was being asked as a minister to design a system of land ownership there is no way I would design a system that ended up with 0.008% of the population owning over half the private land I just think that that's not meant to be an attack on any individual that owns a substantial amount of land it's just that that's the fact of life we have that pattern of ownership now but I certainly wouldn't design a system that ended up with that as outcome the members in the chamber would agree that that's not necessarily in the public interest to start from that point and end up with that position but we have to be mindful of the fact that we are needing to be fair to all that's why we have the land fund and we've extended the land fund I've indicated that we've extended the land fund up to 2020 and indeed that we are prepared to look at a case by case basis where individual projects would stretch the land fund in terms of a normal year a big project may come forward and might go through the threshold for the maximum grant that's allowable on the land fund at the moment so we're looking flexibly at that and given undertaking that we're sympathetic to those opportunities that may come on the market for a larger state that a community wants to take on that we will engage with them and see what's possible because we think it's such an important objective that we work with communities to further community ownership so I know there's a debate at the moment about upper limits and these kind of matters and we're clearly going to study the recommendation report we have limited powers at the moment in these areas as well, something to put on record and maybe at the point that there are other as the point was made earlier on if you're looking at the outcome that you want to achieve there are different ways to achieve it and we need to evaluate what the options are clearly land form review group have put forward their recommendation as to how to achieve this and how to help move towards a pattern of fairer as they put it fairer sort of land ownership and I agree with that outcome over time but we have potential to maybe use thresholds to sort of assess at some point whether it's in the public interest that someone owns land I'll come back to the question public interest in a minute if I may but you have stated on more than one occasion that as the concentration of ownership decreases both more community owners and you believe more private owners and I just wonder how you equate that with other strands of government policy like the land use strategy and climate change targets because I think there is evidence to show that these targets are often easier reached where land management is in larger units rather than very small ones and I just wonder how you equate all that together in formulating this policy I would put on record there are states that are very supportive of our land use strategy and climate use strategy and have been very helpful in terms of delivering land based projects ones that are on ecosystem level or large scale landscape scale projects where community ownership has been involved private sector ownership has been involved NGOs have been involved and clearly that's an important feature but you can also achieve a similar level of engagement amongst a larger number of landowners it may take more time but you can still achieve the same result if there is a positive will but I would also say that when it comes to the point that I just made where community ownership has taken forward how we can marry these two things up how can we have growing community ownership but at the same time create new opportunities for private sector the point that I just made about housing plots being available to a community and then release lots of smaller plots or indeed small farm units where they're not felt to be core to the purpose of the community project they may release that for the general market so you may create private sector owners in that way as well so there are opportunities to community ownership to release more land for private ownership is what the basic point I'm making and when it comes to co-ordination yes I accept there are circumstances where having a small number of large landowners can be a relatively efficient way to implement quite early in terms of how to proceed in terms of a landscape scale project and I recognise there have been some good examples of that but we shouldn't necessarily assume that it's going to be impossible to do it with a larger number of smaller landowners as well who will identify with the same public interest and the same end goal as being in their interest too but the minister recognised that they get the clear an ascent land project which is a living landscape and management groups are supposed to work together on neighbouring estates to manage particular aspects of our wildlife indeed and as we know in some cases that doesn't happen where you've got large land holdings but equally it can work effectively where you've got small landowners so I think there's a danger in being and I know that government's sometimes accused of being very simplistic about this and I'm trying to take a sophisticated approach to it I don't want to be in a position where I'm painting a picture where all private landowners have a problem far from it many of them do a very good job but we also have to recognise there's some that don't and equally there's some community ownership models that don't necessarily work as effectively as they should but equally there's some excellent community ownership models so I think we need to have a mature discussion which doesn't polarise the debate that we reflect there are good models of private ownership working with local communities there are excellent models of community ownership working with private owners releasing land for private ownership and a less binary view if you like about the debate because I think there are opportunities for private ownership and coming out of community ownership and there's opportunities to work with private landowners to deliver a wider public interest as well If I may say so I'm very pleased to hear you highlight the fact that there are good examples of private ownership because that's something that's sadly lacking in the report Minister the term public interest has been used a lot in this whole debate and indeed I think some people would argue that this is all about the public interest Can I ask you how you see that the public interest will be defined will it be a local level or will it be as I fear by one of the agencies or indeed a combination of the agencies that have been previously mentioned in this debate I worry about the idea of a centralized definition of public interest for what I do see to be a local thing Well I think the way that the Land of Form Act 2003 already works is there is a degree of discretion in terms of how you interpret the public interest at a local level clearly I would want to see if I'm assessing the case for a registration a strong demonstration of a public interest is it possible in a project and indeed the community owner or potential community owner is encouraged through their engagement with our own officials and indeed with Highlands Islands Enterprise others who are supporting them to define as well and clearly as possible how their objectives are how they're going to fulfil them and how they engage in delivering the public good, public interest and I think that that should give confidence that there are methods by which we can be sure and that there is not only community support through a democratic kind of test of community support at a local level through a vote in favour of registration or in support of registration but also the actual business case being robust about these matters I don't think you can have guidelines and if you like an understanding a common understanding of what generally speaking sorts of things that would be in the public interest you will always have a degree of as I see it at the present in terms of the Land Format 2003 where we have Ministerial Oversight in terms of signing off decisions say okay that one is, this one isn't you could have a situation where potentially someone might apply to take over land which has been run perfectly well with good level of engagement delivering a high degree of economic impact for the community and it wouldn't necessarily be in the interest to have it the ownership change for a poorly defined project which maybe didn't have a clearly defined public interest and we have rejected applications it's wrong to assume that every I sometimes regret having to do so because you feel sorry for the community but they haven't made their case or there's been a technical breach in terms of the act so we can't support them but we are in place to ensure that the project is properly defined that it is in the public interest and that they are compliant with the legislation in terms of the requirements to demonstrate community support so I am confident that well we need to streamline in some respects to make some things less bureaucratic and less cumbersome that the principles that underline the act are sound ones and that they demonstrate that community ownership when it happens is the best that leads us naturally on to carrots and sticks Jim Hume, land taxation payments and markets I don't have any questions on carrots but I do have on taxation indeed the review group made some recommendations regarding taxation in the review 2 increased the number of landowners in Scotland so it would obviously be interesting to look at extending the exemption of agriculture, forest and other land-based businesses from non-domestic rates which I believe the Government at this stage aren't intending to progress but you can clarify that to make that sure or not land value taxation specific species sporting rates and the review and reform of exemptions and reliefs for agriculture and forestry land in national and local taxation the review group and asked them if they'd considered an economical impact on what we would call normal agriculture farming they said they had not considered that that was not within the remit which I thought was a bit strange so it would be interesting in your views and of course the Government's views on these various measures whether you're intending to progress I certainly recognise that there's in relation to taxation, business rates, exemptions of the interest in this whole debate and from both sides clearly we did complete a review of business rates last year the finance secretary and colleagues have taken a review they sought views on how business rates system can better support sustainable economic growth we see a very important pillar of government policy that we're committed to retaining the most competitive business tax environment in the UK through our business rates policies we certainly have no plans to change that position we want to retain a competitive business rates environment we didn't feel in terms of the recommendation given that we'd had a very recent review of business rates and how they apply to business including agricultural businesses that there was a case at this time to change our position and I appreciate that that has upset some and that people were pushing for that to be examined we believe that we can better support sustainable economic growth but still delivering the same level of income needed to provide local services on which businesses and communities lie so the objective is to support services at a local level that business rates would fund that we think there are better ways of funding that to government grant to local authorities other ways rather than how to raise business rates from agricultural businesses that are feared they have quite a lot of borrowing obviously there's a major reform of CAP about to be going through at the moment and cabinet secretary will make his statement today on what the outcome is for Scotland so it's a quite important transitional period for farming and we give them a bit of stability in terms of we're not proposing to change the business rates environment that allows those businesses to take on board the impact of CAP for them without having another thing coming in that might impact on their business at this time so we just didn't think the case there was a case for reviewing that decision at this time we think it's important to maintain a bit of stability there and in fact we have got this competitive business rates system on land value tax we certainly recognise there is wide support for land value tax in economic circles we're still considering the recommendations made by LRG and we don't want to get into any kind of knee jerk reaction either way to the recommendations in this respect we think it's a subject because of its strong support it's worthy of further discussion because we understand the role it could potentially play but we don't yet fully understand the potential impacts it might have so I think I want to keep an open mind about that at the moment and listen to stakeholder views about the future for how a land value tax might fit in it's a very complex area where a full economic study the point that Mr Hew made that it's not yet been done by the review group themselves probably reflects the remit and the fact that they didn't have the resource to commission such a piece of work but if we were to consider it we would obviously need to have a full economic study to determine its impacts but I do understand the group's reasoning behind the recommendation and the rationale for it and the strong support there is for it to take a view either way as to whether it's going to proceed The other one was the species specific spotting rate it's never easy to say I know there's contrasting views in this there is at the moment a position that taxation in terms of land value tax or business rates is a form of taxation on land not necessarily the species on which the land is being used for so we don't know that there's an element of debate about this point so I'm not saying I necessarily have a definitive legal position myself but I understand there may be no scope within the law to distinguish between different species in terms of having differential business rates or basis species so that's something we obviously need to understand The complexity that you mention about tax and these of issues I take it that there could be a work stream that would include the various aspects of tax that affect land that we're taking forward together and that the land value tax inquiry would be seen as a part of that over some period of time This is one of the examples that I think I've leaked early on talking to Claudia Beamish that there are examples of work streams that involve other ministers primarily rather than ourselves either Cabinet Secretary or myself so we obviously clearly have to engage with colleagues their officials are likely to be the ones that perhaps would have to do this sort of work or commission the work but we'll obviously feedback to the committee as soon as we have clarity about how we will go about looking at this sort of issue where clearly there needs to be a modelling and understanding of how it might impact and taking into account obviously whatever impact there is from the cap reform package Last but by no means least the crofting subject Dave Thompson I just wonder minister the recommendations from the LRRG are that we need a modern and robust statutory framework for crofting it's not that long ago since we've been through some of this but I know that the crofting law group have collated a sump of interesting words significant anomalies in crofting law I just wonder if you can give us your view on whether as some would suggest we should tear up crofting law or should we be having another look at it based on what the crofting law group are taking forward Well I certainly recognise it's a hugely significant area of work during the passage of the amendment act the crofting amendment act we had to address the de-crofting problem and I gave an undertaking to members across the chamber that while they were bringing forward some other challenges in terms of law that we had to for necessity cut short if you like the parliamentary procedure for that bill and keep its remit fairly limited to ensure it went through to address the problem in hand so that being the case we said we would look at these issues we are engaging with the sump I agree it's not the charming term but we are engaging with the sump and I'm very much welcome that initiative that's been taken by specialists in crofting law I think it's very helpful to identify for us the kind of 80-20 principle what are the 20% of problems that are causing 80% of the difficulty if you like and that will help us to understand whether we have to go what the options are in terms of how we proceed to deal with that is it an amendment to existing legislation that can deal with these relatively limited number of very high impact issues or is it a more fundamental exercise that needs to be undertaken I have in mind of course both for this committee potentially and certainly Parliament and scrutinising the whole crofting law situation and we have engaged a stakeholder group as well which involves all the key parties to look at the future if you like of the regulatory framework for crofting and its provision so it's a huge issue we'll obviously as this year progresses get more information from the sump and indeed from our engagement with stakeholders which will give us an idea as to what the next steps are but I certainly am of the view that if we were to take a view that we're going to scrap crofting law as it stands and start again that would be a huge undertaking and I wouldn't enter into it lightly so I think we need to understand what needs to be done first is it relatively limited number of issues that will make the maximum possible impact or do we have to and do we need legislative change and administrative changes at the commission address those in some cases so understanding where the balance falls in terms of legislation versus administrative change and just how extensive the change needs to be will then reflect on what the best approach is You're happy with that just now right well in summing up a couple of points I think first of all from Clare Baker and then myself It's been an interesting discussion this morning minister and many of the areas you've talked about do crossover into other portfolios and other departments when we think about land reform bill that will be coming forward there's quite a lot of pressure on that bill to include policies that belong to the people's responsibilities and that's something that government's not usually very good at how do you plan to make sure the bill is as broad as possible and does take in the responsibilities of other ministers and is really a cabinet focus bill well I mean the community empowerment bill that we were already undertaking has been a good example where we've worked with other portfolios to look at the ramifications for them and engaging them so I'm not necessarily going to agree on the record with Clare Baker that we've not been pyrgyns of virtue in respect I'm sure Clare Baker has made her point but we clearly we recognise where you've got multidisciplinary team you need to have good strong engagement both with ministers and officials in different departments or stakeholders because there might not be stakeholders that I or my colleagues in my department necessarily engage with on a wider basis so we need to explore and exploit the stronger stakeholder lines that perhaps exist for other ministers as well in understanding the ramifications of a bill so that's why it's important we do take stock of what land reform review group has said we go into it with support for the sense of direction that the report has laid out and the outcomes they're wishing to achieve but looking at how best we can deliver those and it may well be in some cases we can say yes we agree with that and we will take for that recommendation there will be others where we say we have to modify it or have a different approach and I think that will be informed by it but certainly give Clare Baker undertaking we will try and make sure we demonstrate a good example of joined up thinking and joined up working and I would certainly welcome input from people around the table here and indeed wider parliament on where we go it would seem that really we've got to try and come up with some suggestions for work streams that we think from the evidence we've taken we'll give and we'll give that consideration in the near future and I believe that you know much of what's been asked and I'd like to thank both the committee members and the minister and his officials for you know elucidating some of these points I'd just like to reiterate what it says at the end of the land reform review groups report we offer the Scottish Government a range of recommendations which are summarised and we encourage it to be radical and it's thinking and bold in its action the prize to the nation will be significant that sets these particular bar high and we hope that our negotiations with you and your recommendations will indeed meet that set of targets because we believe it's in the best interest of the nation the public interest of the common good of the nation to do so and I hope that this will be the first of several bites of the cherry for us to interrogate you about the development of your plans to achieve these things just now so thank you minister and your officials for your involvement we will take a short break just now in order to change over and bring in new witnesses thank you section 3 is on marine and fishery issues and our agenda item is to welcome George Eustace MP parliamentary under secretary of state for farming, food and marine environment to give evidence to the committee on marine and fisheries issues I welcome parliamentary under secretary and his official John Robbs the director of marine fisheries for DEFRA and I invite Mr Eustace to make an introductory statement good morning well thank you very much for the invitation to come here it's great to have this opportunity to talk about the common fisheries policy and the reforms that we are currently in the process of implementing and I think I just said a very brief few words I think that the final agreement that we got on the common fisheries policy has the potential to be a really radical reform of the CFP for decades it's not really worked properly there's been the scandal of good fish being discarded back into the sea and I think the combination of having a discard ban combined with flexibilities between the way quotas work combined with a much stronger emphasis on regional decision making together could be quite a radical reform and while we're never ever going to have a man made fisheries policy that's perfect because the marine environment is reasonably complex I do think that the agreement we've got is a major step forward and that's why we're keen to make sure we roll up our sleeves and get on with making sure we implement it effectively so we've got groups at the moment that are working on a discard ban plan for both the North Sea and the North West waters and John Robbs on my right here is on the working group with that and we are anticipating that they will submit their plans during the course of this summer by the end of this month to the European Commission so that we're in a position to implement the discard ban on to Bellagics from the beginning of next year January 2015 and obviously then we will begin work on the slightly more complex process of working out how we're going to implement the discard ban on the wider white starting in 2016 Thank you very much indeed various members have issues they wish to raise I might just start off with the regionalisation process and ask you if you can tell me how it's developing so that the North Sea regionalisation can become effective Well I think one of the key things about the new system is that rather than the commission initiating proposals and then member states having to go and argue through trilaterals at an exhausting long December council we've slightly changed things so that there's a legally binding commitment to fish sustainably and it'll be the initiative will start to come from those member states that have got a shared interest in the water to draw up initially the discard plans and then eventually multi-annual plans for the management of those fisheries we'll still have the racks of the committees that are in place now and obviously the advice that they give will be very influential on those multilateral negotiations that go on between member states and then at the end of that process clearly there will need to be some kind of delegated act from the European Commission to give authority to it I think we are making good progress in terms of the discard plans for both the North Sea and the North West waters but I might just ask John actually at the table and very closely involved in those to give you an update on the specific details on those two OK, thank you, Covena I mean, throughout the EU there are a number of regional groupings there's one in the Baltic which has some history behind it in the North Sea we've had a history of co-operation and then there have been further groups created as a result of the CFP reform the one that the UK is interested in is the North West Waters group that effectively stretches from North of Scotland down to Brittany and then there's another new group in South West Waters and other things being done in the Mediterranean we're all finding our way forward here I'm not quite making up the rules as we go along but certainly working out how to make the rules work and the top priority that we've immediately had is preparing the discard plan for the pelagic pelagic fishery is where the discard ban comes into effect from the 1st of January next year and all of the groupings are concentrating on that because within the reformed regulation there are clear things to be set down in a discard plan and agreed regionally where you don't have a multi-annual plan in place as is the case now I think it's fair to say that probably in the Baltic they're being very successful a limited number of countries and a long tradition of working together in the North Sea we're being pretty successful it's obviously more stretching in the newer groups where there's no history of working together but there is a strong desire on the part of all the countries concerned to make it work and we're now at the sort of quite critical stage where we're balancing the desire to make it work with everybody's desire to get the best possible deal for themselves so we'll see where we get to in the next few weeks I would only add that while I speak for the UK and the director level group a Scottish colleague has been with me invariably at these meetings and we obviously agree our approach before we go and we're very happy to have a Scottish colleague with us given the very strong interest Is there any supplementary on the regionalisation issue? There are supplementaries and other things coming up on regionalisation On the discard ban which you mentioned On the discard ban Yes, thank you minister I know that the North Sea Basin and western waters are both submitting discard management plans to the EU at the moment and the deadline is the end of June there's concern that that the controls and rules should be the same for all states especially in Scottish waters because otherwise you could get a situation where Scotland is not on Scottish fishermen not on a level playing field with say for the likes of fishermen from Norway so could you ensure that the rules and controls are put in place are the same for everybody for all fishing states within our waters regarding the discard ban? The key thing that I'd stress and the EU regulation when it was put together is very clear on this is that the enforcement measures adopted should be equivalent now the reason they use the word equivalent rather than identical is that we do want to move this forward and make it happen and if you insist on total uniformity two things happen you either have to centralise those decisions again back at Brussels which is not what we're trying to do we're trying to decentralise the decision making or the alternative is that one single member state that maybe isn't keen on the policy as a whole and doesn't really want a discard ban might make such an unreasonable request that it sort of collapses the whole system so while we won't say at this stage because we want to move this forward we won't say it'll be identical we are clear that it'll be equivalent and you're right to put your finger on this and raise with me a concern particularly with Scottish fishermen that they may abide by the rules and they're concerned that other countries might not so I understand that it is one of the most contentious issues that we've got in these groups because the focus of these groups is on the discard ban and below that the real focus and the real discussion is around some of the exemptions on things like survivability methods of enforcement and de minimis it is a I can't say that they'll be identical because that's not how the regulation is drafted but we do intend them to be equivalent Thank you Jim Hulme Good morning to you both Thanks for coming along Mentioned about Scottish representation during negotiations and we're often led to believe that we don't get good representation but I believe during the macro regulations it was actually a Marine Scotland person Alan Rob who actually led the regulations for Scotland is this something that's quite quite common? One thing I would say is we've recognised throughout the importance of the macro settlement to the Scottish fleet well over two thirds of the macro that we land are in Scotland a vitally important industry for you here The negotiations on macro were led by the European Commission because this is something that they have competence on our behalf but it's fair to say that because the UK is the country with the greatest interest in this and we've got a lot of credibility on fisheries issues we are consulted very closely by the commission on their plans and what they intend to do and we in turn as UK Government obviously work incredibly closely with the Scottish industry on this so what did it add on the specific point about I think that's absolutely right I mean it is the commission who leads on the negotiations with third countries and we all have to live with that that way of working then on the the coordination within the EU the member states obviously discuss with the commission what the EU line should be and on that I cannot think of an occasion where the commission was not present as you would expect given the significance of that particular negotiation and the UK team work very closely together in influencing the EU position which the commission then negotiate with Norway or any other third country David Thompson Thank you convener and good morning Mr Eustace I just wonder if we can elaborate at that point a little bit officials are one thing has there ever been a case where a Scottish minister or cabinet secretary has actually led the negotiations on behalf of the UK No, I think we're very clear that the UK and I'm very clear that I'm the UK minister not an English minister and I happen to come from Cornwall so I don't usually describe myself as English anyway but I'm representing the UK when I'm doing these negotiations and I think it's really important that I'm fed at every part of the UK when I do that What I can say though Richard Lockhead attends virtually all of the council meetings that we have when officials are there we have a very detailed discussion before we go into the European Council to discuss exactly the approach that we're going to take we frequently mend our negotiating position in response to some of the concerns that Scotland raises we work incredibly closely but I think a UK minister should lead a UK negotiation but we should do so having consulted in great detail with the devolved administrations and that's exactly what we do I believe that there have been occasions when there was no UK politician available or they had to leave or whatever at the same time there was a Scottish minister who was there but the opportunity to allow the Scottish minister to take the place of the UK minister who wasn't able to attend it wasn't taken up and an official took the seat why do you feel that's a satisfactory way to deal with things I think because as I said I go there and the officials that are with me go there to represent the whole of the UK and to do so fairly and I just think that's quite an important principle that I'm there as a UK minister not as an English minister what I can say is that's not happened since I've been the minister I always make great effort to make sure that I can get there we're always very keen to ensure that we've got proper ministerial representation on behalf of the UK at these European council meetings I certainly hope you'll change things that's the implication of what you've just said but the fact remains that a Scottish minister a Scottish politician bearing in mind the huge amount of fish that we contribute towards the UK pool could equally represent the whole of the UK it doesn't need to be a Westminster minister to represent the whole of the UK surely and the opportunity in the past hasn't been taken when the situation has arose where the UK minister wasn't able to be there a Scottish minister was but the Scottish minister was not allowed to lead for the whole of the UK why is that? I think I've made the point that I think it should be a UK minister who's in the chair representing all the parts of the UK and otherwise you would get into an argument of why is it a Scottish minister rather than an Northern Ireland minister or a Welsh minister for instance I do find it's a curious argument I know it has been raised before to have a Scottish minister who wants to leave the UK but seems so eager to sit in the chair representing the UK but all I would say is I go there to represent the whole of the UK when I do so and I think it's important that we do that so that we don't start getting a lot of confusion at a European level about where we sit on these things but make no doubt I regularly have discussions on these things with Richard Lockhead and constant dialogue about the positions that we take and there are times for instance on those really crucial negotiations when we do the December council when we go in for the most important part of the discussion which is the trilog that we have with both the European Union presidency and the commission at that stage Richard Lockhead and the other devolved ministers do attend that trilog with me and yes do lead on those issues that matter most to them but in December Richard Lockhead was in that trilog alongside me and he led on some of the issues for instance around flexibility for Anglifish The basic principle that you've just outlined is that it has to be a Westminster politician to lead for the whole of the UK because it wouldn't be appropriate for a Scottish minister to lead because he might have the opportunity not to be fair to his colleagues and Wales and Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK that's the implication of what you said a few minutes ago Yes, I don't think I could be clear on this I think it's a UK delegation and you should have a UK minister there that represents the interests of every part of the UK I don't think you'd want to get into a situation where you had just one part of the UK representing that so I'm very much there representing every part of the UK when I attend a Scottish minister could represent the whole of the UK in a fair and a fair way I would just make this point that a Scottish minister is not in the UK Government so when I'm there I'm representing the UK Government which represents every part of the UK and I do think that's different to having a Scottish minister who represents a Scottish Government and Scottish interests only but look, the Scottish fishing industry is an incredibly important industry we recognise that the UK fishing industry and it's for that reason that I work very very closely with Richard Lochhead when we're putting together the positions that we take to council Thank you I think we'll move on to some of the new CFP and Scotland's share of the UK EU Fisheries Funding Nigel Don Thank you convener and good morning minister Can I just say thank you very much for coming because some of your colleagues have come to committees in this place and I'm very glad to see you and grateful to you The European Fisheries Fund is of course a pot of money that comes back from Europe it's divided across the UK and as you say you represent the whole of the UK I understand that I have in front of me the figures that Scotland gets from now on some 46% which I believe is an increase and of course he's welcome but I also understand that we have at least two thirds of the fish landed in the UK so I wonder whether you could explain to me why even 46% is fair Well in arriving at these allocations and you'll appreciate this is always difficult because also every part of the UK would say they should have more but we did develop with officials between all the developed administrations a set of criteria which looked at the objectives of the new scheme and for instance there's a slightly greater emphasis on the new scheme on things like aquaculture and you've got a large aquaculture industry here in Scotland and it looked at some of the other objectives of the scheme like delivering the discard ban and on that basis they came up with a formula and I'm sure John might be able to elaborate the precise criteria in that formula but came up with a formula that arrived at a certain allocation I mean I would say this that when on the last EFF the European Fisheries Fund the predecessor to the EMFF when we allocated 40% to Scotland at that point Richard Lockhead said that was a big boost for Scotland it was a great deal he was very satisfied with that that this was a great deal for Scotland so if 40% is a great deal for Scotland 46% has got to be an even better deal for Scotland as far as I can see I think these are always going to be difficult contentious decisions because everybody would always like more money but I think it's a fair outcome and it is a significant uplift for Scotland Thank you and as I say anything extra is undoubtedly going to be welcome but I'm still struggling with the notion that it's fair you mentioned aquaculture well we have the vast majority of the British aquaculture we land the vast majority of fish and we do a very great deal of the processing which is also part of the industry which is meant to support so I'm still struggling to see how less than half and let's not be juddish about the number is actually fair well all I would say is when we were trying to reach these agreements I think it was very fair to Scotland in the end England applying a criteria slightly higher uplift than it did but in order to help facilitate an agreement with Ireland and Northern Ireland and Wales we went for a slightly smaller increase for England on the basis that they previously hadn't claimed it there's a second thing here that's important the big argument made to me by Richard Lockhead on this issue previously and fishing leaders has been that Scotland's tended to use its allocation whereas other parts of the UK haven't always so another important part of this deal is some flexibility so that if into the year we find that other parts of the UK are not using all of their allocation there is an ability there some flexibility to move up to 10% of those other allocations for instance to Scotland so that we make use of that money rather than send it back to Brussels so I think that combination of a combined with that flexibility to deal with the problem of certain parts of the UK not claiming all of their allocation is a really good deal for Scotland again let me be clear the flexibility is always welcome to be honest if it's good administration whichever way it happens to go but if you're starting from less than your share to start off with then obviously you want to get more out of it the other numbers that I have is quite simply that we land some 7% or 8% in Europe but we get less than 2% of the EFF as well and I'm just wondering how that is fair well what I would say on that is the way that the European Union allocates so there's the inside the UK allocation which we are responsible for in terms of how the EU allocates the funds to member states it tends to be on quite similar line to the way for instance they allocate convergence funding so there is the case that those less developed countries where the industries are weaker would tend to attract more investment that problem wouldn't go away for instance if Scotland was an independent country unless it became a substantially poorer country which I'm sure nobody would want so the fact that the UK has a lower allocation in some member states is a product of the fact that it's allocated rather on the lines of the convergence funds so the UK tends to get a small allocation than some of the other member states but not all I mean Malta for instance per vessel gets a very small sum of money compared to Scotland it's about three times higher allocation per vessel than we get here in Scotland that we do in Malta for instance I might just ask John to come in on the formalities I know you've made the point about that you start from a position that's unfair I'm not sure that's right because the starting point was actually on an agreed set of principles and agreed set of criteria with officials in all the devolved administrations so John do you want to just elaborate a bit more on that point? Yes of course I think for both the allocation within the UK and to the UK within the EU the level of landings is not one criterion but in no sense the determinant the point of the Fisheries Fund is to help member states fund changes to the fleet to enable them to implement CFP reform and there many ways the number of fishermen is rather more important than the number of fish and so if you look at the criteria there are actually more vessels in England than there are in Scotland there are more fishermen in England in Scotland in Scotland there's a bigger aquaculture sector and there's also more landings and more ports so it's actually a mix of criteria and you can't just select one but we can all select one and say I'd like that to be the determinant and that will give me most but it's actually a mix of criteria and those are all weighed in the balance to work out as well as we could what will be a fair distribution now the result of that is that both Scotland and England would receive increased shares Northern Ireland and Wales because there's obviously any ads up to 100% would receive reduced shares the level of reduction was very very difficult for Wales and Northern Ireland as the minister said as UK minister he decided to soften that reduction so that's within the UK at EU level equally level of landings is not the simple criterion there's questions about the level of overcapacity that needs to be reduced in different Member States fleets there's questions about the convergence issue in terms of overall levels of population poverty these are all factors that come into play although in all honesty we do not know precisely how the commission determines the allocations the only other point I'd add is that in the new fund and we have yet to have announced though we're expecting it any day now the actual sums of money per Member State we expect that the UK will receive more on the data collection work and on the control and enforcement work both of which are really important in the UK and certainly in Scotland and we so expect our share to go up there and get rather more money which will be very welcome but it's not completely transparent process within the commission we're waiting to find out what the numbers are Mike, just one more thank you for that explanation which is very useful what that suggests to me is that an industry which is properly organised and operating efficiently and is efficiently managed and I put that all together is actually going to get less and actually those who organise themselves properly are effectively penalised and public money goes to those who have failed to organise themselves properly that is a I suppose a feature of any convergence style fund you could say the same about structural funds that it is there to support those that need help in converging with the best performers in the EU that's the actual stated purpose of these funds and that's the purpose of regional policy the world over good morning to you Mr Eustace and to Mr Robbs in your opening remarks you said I hope I quote accurately that the marine environment is incredibly complex which I'm sure around this table we all agree with and beyond this committee room today of course could I ask you in relation to the new European marine and fisheries fund the degree to which or could you comment on the importance of member states now having to reward fishing businesses which meet environmental criteria and Mr Robbs has already mentioned some input into from that for data protection sorry for data collection rather could you highlight something about how the use of this money will help the wider marine environment and the sustainability of our fish and fish stocks well the first thing to say is having done the allocation will obviously be now for the Scottish Government to work out how they spend their share but I can tell you a little bit about what we are what our thinking is on this frontier in England and we would envisage for us given the challenges of the discard ban probably the lion's share of the so-called core funding which is the main part of the funding that goes direct to fishermen we would envisage going to support more selective fishing practices and equipment that helps fishermen fish more selectively which will have a big impact on making a the discard ban work and B if we can make that discard ban work a huge improvement in terms of the environmental outcome of fishing so that is where we intend to focus the lion's share of that core funding there are as John Robb alluded to three strands to the EMFF nothing is ever simple at a European level and the other two one is around supporting data collection and one around enforcement both of which I think I am writing saying are funds predominantly to support government work in that area I don't know John whether you want to say a little bit about how we would intend in England at least to spend some of those two funds and whether there is anything to add on wider environmental point okay yes absolutely we are currently preparing the UK program which has to get commission approval for implementing the European Moon Fisheries Fund it won't totally surprise the committee to know there are four different parks to the UK program and I am sure you can readily work out what those four different parks are reflecting the desire of the four organisations to have their own priorities which is totally within our devolved system I think in all parts but particularly probably England and Scotland data collection is a key area to improve our understanding of the state of stocks especially in the seas and that will become more and more important as we implement the discard ban and move towards achieving maximum sustainable yield in all of the fisheries so we will be looking to get maximum benefit from that funding control and enforcement equally and it was alluded to by Mr McGregor presents discard ban presents additional problems on control and enforcement which requires a degree of investment so we will be looking there to use the additional money to help us again to make the new rules operate effectively all of which is aimed at improving the state of the fish stocks so that that benefits the marine environment generally and of course ultimately it is to increase quotas to benefit the industry Thank you We've got several more people on this subject Angus McDonald first Yes thanks Good morning Mr Eustace I listened to Mr Rubs argument there was regard to using other factors to determine the EFF split such as the higher number of fishermen in England which you mentioned or the higher proportion of processors The problem I have with that is that the UK Government negotiated 1.4% of the EFF fund for Scotland whereas a number of other countries with fishing sectors similar in size to the Scottish sector negotiated a much better deal so that the UK Government negotiated 3.1% of the total allocation that via 2.9% and Estonia 1.9% meanwhile we are languishing near the bottom with 1.4% Do you not recognise that that is an unfair deal Well as I said you can trade figures endlessly I made the point of Malta for instance where their allocation equates to around 8,000 euros per vessel on the EFF compared to 26,000 euros per vessel in Scotland and there are divisions and I think I've covered why some of those less developed countries given that there's an element of the formula calculation is similar to the convergence one that's why you would end up with a lower level I have to say I don't think Denmark is in a situation where it's less fortunate in Scotland with regard to the quality of its industry 3.9% 3.1% Well, I mean it is as I said there's lots of criteria that they use in that allocation one of the things that also the UK Government more broadly has wanted to achieve at a European level is a freeze in the EU budget it's had cross-party support in Westminster, the SNP joined with the Conservatives and others to vote for a freeze in the EU budget and when you do that there are implications and all of us all the parties that we have wanted to freeze that EU budget and it does mean that sometimes you're not going to you know it does mean that sometimes there are difficult choices to make on the budget Thank you and good morning Scotland's new concept of MEP and Duncan recently suggested that the European Fisheries funds should be spent elsewhere rather than in Scotland and his justification for that and I quote was the funds should go to those places which are struggling the Scottish industry is not struggling but as we heard from yourself earlier today Scotland actually has been using up all of its allocation of the funding would you not accept that as an indication that the demand does lie here and that we are in fact struggling There are always challenges in the fishing industry not just in Scotland but elsewhere we've had an incredibly difficult winter for instance in the south west and Fishermen down there with the storms we've had a very difficult time but I mean I just come back to what I said in the opening really we recognise that Scotland has tended to use all its allocation one of the reasons why we've done two things we've increased it first of all from 40 to 46% of the UK allocation it's a major increase but also added this flexibility so that if we have a situation in future where other parts of the UK are underutilising their allocation sure we will transfer that to Scotland because we don't want these funds to go unused and so I think having that flexibility has been an important part of the agreements here and I think it's a good solution and a good way forward You wouldn't agree with Mr Duncan, you recognise that there is a demand for these funds and the need for them to come to Scotland Look, recognise that there's a role for these funds absolutely and that's why we will be putting quite a lot of effort to use it, we can see it's got a very important role to play for instance in investment in more selective netgear to make the discard bound work, I don't know the comments that you made might have been in this broader context about the EU allocations rather than the allocations here within the UK because I think we've demonstrated that we recognise the importance of fishing in Scotland that's why we've allocated 46% from 40% Thank you for that answer, can I just develop a slight tangent? In the press release it was released yesterday by Defra, there's a reference to accessing these funds for the processing sector I just want to be able to outline what exactly the processing sector can get from these funds because much of Scotland's processing sector at the moment is finding it very difficult just now because I've lacked the continuity of supply for example and they're struggling to track new entrants which has got obvious problems going forward so I just wonder what criteria apply to the funds for the processing sector that might allow them to get some benefit from them? Well I might ask John in a moment just to give the specific criteria but the previous EFF and the new EMFF fund does allow for investment in processing I know they visited Peterhead towards the end of last year and I know they were hoping to be able to access some of those funds to upgrade some of the facilities they've got there so the type of thing it has funded previously is investment in equipment and capacity to do fish processing and obviously one of the other implications potentially of the discard ban is you may be landing more unwanted by-catch and you may therefore need capacity in some places to increase your ability to process fish. It's too early to tell to the extent to which that will happen and certainly in many parts of the country there's a lot of surplus capacity on the fish processing side but that might be one area that could be considered John is there anything to add to that on terms of the specific types of projects that the new one might have funded? Yes I think that's right, there's a good deal of flexibility and you'd be very much up to the Scottish Government to decide how far this is a priority within its part of the programme and I think the only other area I can immediately think of in addition to those that the Minister has already covered is the potential to develop new products and new markets particularly for species which are currently not deemed to be marketable but actually just because there isn't a market and that's quite a promising area for some species. Jamie McGregor followed by Dave Thompson Can I just start by saying that I very much welcome the fact that Scotland is set for a bigger European fishing fund share within the UK and thank the Minister for that. Now on the subject of deputisation of who sits in the chair at EU meetings much mentioned by Dave Thompson across the table there am I not right in thinking that when Scotland wanted to manage its own levels of effort ie days at sea that the UK negotiated this for Scotland despite disagreeing with the Scottish position and that Scotland now has that opportunity and also that in the mackerel dispute resolution talks it was Scotland that took the helm but was very ably supported by the weight of the UK now on that point can you think of an instance when the UK delegation worked against the needs of the Scottish fishing in Europe and would you agree that in the EU negotiations being a large member state is a very good thing? Let me take those maybe in reverse order on your latter point that's absolutely the case the UK is one of the major members of the EU with a large number of votes and in addition we're taking very seriously on fishing matters just given that we've got such a huge fishing industry and that we're a maritime country so all of those and we also have a lot of credibility because we do advocate sustainable fishing and we're serious about it so all of those things mean that the UK's got incredible clout when it comes to fishing discussions at the European Council and yes obviously Scotland because it's the best part of half of the UK industry depending on which measure you use and I know people have used all sorts of figures but roughly half it has a major bearing and major influence on what we do and I think that going there as the UK to argue for Scottish interests which we routinely do and by the way Scottish interests on fishing are hardly ever at variance to the interests of other parts of the UK we're able to go there with a very very strong voice and I don't think that would be the case with an independent Scotland which would have maybe similar voting rights to say in Estonia I think it would be different on your other point about the UK I would just make this point I mean I'm I have to go and account for the decisions I make in Parliament and if I'm unfair to Fishermen in Wales I'll have Welsh MPs on my back and if I'm unfair to Fishermen in Scotland I'll have Scottish MPs on my back likewise for Northern Ireland and for England and that's actually how accountability should work I'm accountable to all of those people and they in turn are accountable to their electorates and to the fishermen in their constituencies and I think that's a really important principle if you want that accountability to work and if you had a minister from a devolved administration in that chair they haven't got the same incentive to be fair to everyone because they haven't got all those other MPs from other parts of the UK potentially on their back if they feel they're being unfair so I think it's just a really important principle that we get that right but absolutely my view is that that we can get a better deal for Scotland with it part of the UK I'd like to continue I have another question but not on that subject There'll be another subject if you back another chance we'll stick to this one at the moment Dave Thompson Thanks very much to Envener and good morning again gentlemen to follow up on the point that Jamie Ray's dare is giving me the opportunity to do that Could I ask you Mr Eustace if there was ever a situation or maybe there has been a situation where you said that the Scottish position was hardly ever at variance with the rest of the UK position which implies that sometimes and occasionally it is at variance therefore representing the whole of the UK if you had to choose between voting for the position of the rest of the UK England perhaps against the Scottish position where there was a variance could you ever see yourself voting for the Scottish position ahead of the our UK position Well as I said I would always in those situations do something that is fair to the UK but I can't remember if I think of the last December council we all had an interest in getting the right EU Norway deal we all had an interest in increasing the North Sea tack and not accepting the proposed 9% cut we had an interest and we argued very powerfully in that December council for increased flexibility with Anglifish which was important to some sectors of the Scottish fishing industry I can't remember a time when we've actually been on a different page on these issues look we've got shared waters we're one UK and we've got very much shared interest when it comes to the fishing industry Maybe I could just pursue that very briefly convener on transferable quotas for instance individual transferable quotas were mooted some time ago The Scottish cabinet secretary's position on quotas is fairly straightforward he doesn't really want quotas that are allocated to Scotland being traded whereby those with the deepest pockets can buy up the quotas and you end up with Scottish communities not having access to any quotas I just wonder you know there's a possibilities there not that is a different position to the position that you might take in relation to these things Well I don't think there is I might ask if you want to come in on the detail of that all I'd say is that one of the key benefits Scotland's got from being part of the UK is that we do have quite a fluid quite a flexible market to be able to swap and lease quotas between producer organisations within the UK and I think that's quite important and obviously we've got the Fisheries Concordat to deal with the way different parts of the UK relate to one another on issues such as where vessels are registered but look I come from Cornwall and when I talk to Cornish Fisherman they'll sometimes complain to me that there's lots of Scottish boats scolipping around Falmouth Bay and in the channel and that's something that concerns them but you know I don't begrudge that we are one of the advantages is we've got this flexibility that comes with being part of the UK and lease quota in order to match your quota that a producer organisation holds with the fishing opportunity so I think it's a major argument actually for doing these things at a UK level John, is there anything to add on the this is the previous idea about the transferable quotas wasn't it? Just the sort of the background history here which is prior to the minister's time but Mr Thompson clearly remembers it and I remember it because last time I was before this committee with Richard Benyon we had a lengthy exchange on the commission's proposal for transferable fishing concessions and I think that's the point you're raising here and at that stage early on in the CFP reform negotiations we were clear in the UK we didn't like what the commission proposed but there were very different perspectives between Mr Lockhead on the one hand and that we were working through and we did work it through within the UK in the course of the negotiation we ended up with a nicer position and you haven't heard about the TFC problem for quite some while and that's because we sorted it out in the context of negotiations so we may start with different perspectives but we work it through until we've got a shared position Thank you for that, I just wonder minister would you be in favour of allowing the Scottish Government to ring fence quotas within Scotland's seas, would that be something that you would consider to ensure that the quotas remain for the use of our local communities around Scotland? Look, at the moment we've got I think the right balance with the Fisheries Concordat that makes sure you don't get vessels trying to circumvent enforcement measures at a particular part of a particular UK administration might have put in place but the benefits of having a larger pool that producer organisations are able to lease freely between themselves so that they actually match fishing opportunities to you know, match the fishing opportunities of the fish that are available so I don't think it would be in Scotland's interest to sort of withdraw from that and have a much smaller quota allocation that it's unable to deny it the flexibility to trade that with the rest of the UK. Mike Ferguson Thank you, I'll be very brief minister good morning to you and could I just say somebody with a Cornish wife I long ago learnt that introducing as English was not in my domestic interest so welcome to the committee can I just clarify one thing I think you said quite early on in this debate which was I think you said that the criteria for EFF funding allocation within the UK was entirely agreed by all the devolved assemblies and parliaments within the UK, is that what you said? The process that we went through was quite an exhaustive process at official level so there were long discussions between officials between all of the devolved assemblies and the UK yes my understanding is that we got to the position of the end where everybody said they would broadly be content with this so that is that's where we got to I should also say that I did have a discussion on this point with Richard Lockhead I think at the beginning of this year one of the Fisheries councils that we had and he was very clear with me then that he understood the difficulties in reaching these agreements but he was more than they might be allocated and that his preference was that if we could get somewhere that was reasonably found dealt with this his primary point was the fact that Scotland had used its allocation and the other parts previously hadn't if we could find a way of addressing that then he would prefer to see a decision made so that we had clarity and certainty about the funds and fishing businesses could prepare for it he would prefer that than to see a long protracted process that maybe went for many months or even years that's fantastic thank you it's a fact that you already mentioned that Britain has a strong role to play in these negotiations and yet Denmark got 3.1% of the funds as has been previously said Latvia 2.9 Estonia that small independent country in the Baltics 1.9% Scotland's got about 1.1% the second lowest funding per ton of fish in Europe do you think that's a very good outcome for the UK negotiation well I would simply come back to what I said and this is it's quite complicated the way that the European Union calculate these types of allocations but there is a strong element on it of looking at things like the convergence criteria and yes that does mean with this particular fund that the UK perhaps gets less than say Denmark but as I said if you look at the amount it gets per vessel considerably more than a country like Malta so there's lots of anomalies in the way any EU scheme of this sort works John I might just ask on the where there's a bit more detail we can give about the precise nature and the formula that the EU follows when doing these types of allocations yes of course I mean first of all this is not a negotiation of the normal sort this allocation by the European Commission it's not like a council negotiation between the Member States to reform the CFP whether UK obviously works very closely with the other big Member States to exert maximum influence this is an issue which the Commission decides so it's not a negotiation of the normal sort I think the percentages you're reading out I don't have them in front of me but I guess those are the allocations under the current European Fisheries Fund rather than the future European Maritime Fisheries Fund and so and those we have yet to learn what they are we should learn in the next few days but certainly in the past Denmark had by far the largest fleet in the EU and it has reduced a vast amount of that fleet and closed down big chunks of its industry and that was the reason essentially why Denmark got the amount it did now we did not make the case for having a very large amount of money to close down much of the Scottish industry you know we would not want to do that and you have to look in each case each country as to what the reasoning is try to discern what the reasoning is that the Commission applied in determining the shares sometimes it's conversion sometimes it's needing to in the case of the new member states change their entire way of operating to introduce the CFP that was obviously an issue when Estonia got its share hasn't been an issue for Scotland since 1973 or subsequently when we developed the CFP so there are different reasons I see so that perhaps might explain why Spain got 25% of the fund in the last period of time which doesn't seem to have reduced their fishing effort that much I think you'll find that again subsequent to Denmark having the largest fleet Spain had a very large fleet a lot of over capacity big issues with poor enforcement and control and big issues with fishing opportunities in third countries a lot of problems now I'm not saying I do not know how far they've invested the money wisely but there were reasons in the Commission's thinking behind why a lot of investment was needed in Spain to sort things out I'd just like to finish this particular line of questioning with another point from your press release yesterday that says that the Scottish fisheries sector was to receive the greatest share of the UK Fisheries Fund that's correct but I'm surprised and although it's not in quotes at the end it says Scotland receives a large amount of the current European Fisheries Fund compared with other well-developed member states but you then use an analogy about vessels per country like it receives 26,000 k euro for 26 k euro for each vessel compared to 12 k for Finland 18 for Ireland and 15 for England isn't this the wrong analogy because you've said that data enforcement, the number of fishermen and so on are really important and the processing sector which is part of our activities so in fact using this analogy is actually spin well look there are different ways you can look at these things but I would say if we are to use the EMFF partly as a way of investing in more selective net gear and the like then I don't think it's an irrelevance the number of vessels that you're trying to support in that endeavour and there are different ways of looking at these figures but as John said this is something that is very much decided at a commission level and they have lots of different factors in the way they make an allocation to member states the bit that we control is the allocation within the UK and I'll just come back to what I said at the beginning I think we've been very very fair this is a great deal for Scotland as I said when we had 40% that was heralded as a very good deal for Scotland at the time by Richard Lockhead we're now at 46% so I think that's the bit that you can judge the UK government on and I think we've been very fair to Scotland in this allocation so do you think then that since we had 2, the second lowest funding per ton in Europe and several other measures the last time that it's going to make much difference at all well coming back to what John said we are expecting any day now possibly even later today but certainly I think by the end of the week the EU to confirm the allocation that it's making to EU member states perhaps that would be a time to rerun all of these formulas in terms of amounts per vessel absolute amounts and amounts per ton thank you we want to move on to fish quotas just now Mr Eustace and Claire Baker have some questions about that thank you convener good afternoon I've had a few questions already around quotas but I'd like to ask you a bit about the concordat which has been now in place for the past year it's actually been in operation and we have touched on the subject of the referendum so it dominates a lot of Scottish discussion at the moment could you clarify what the status of the concordat would be what the status of it currently is and what the status of it would be if Scotland was to lead the rest of the United Kingdom well at the moment and the concordat was drawn up to solve a particular problem which is if you've got a total allowable catch set allocated at a UK level but quite a significant amount of devolved responsibility for enforcement there had been some particular concerns with some parts of the UK England I think was the one that triggered the change had tried to make some licensing change to help support their enforcement measures and they then found that boats were trying to get around that by registering at other ports in other parts of the UK to circumvent the enforcement measures that devolved part was putting in place so it was an important step to get some agreement and the principle one is that boats should be registered at the port at which they land most of their fish and where most of their activity goes on or that they should have another connection with that particular part of the UK so I think it's been an important step forward obviously it's still quite young it was only brought in place during the summer of 2012 and there have been some issues and some tensions obviously around how it works but broadly I think it's been successful look if Scotland left the UK I mean clearly if Scotland left the UK the first thing to happen would be outside of the EU for certainly a period of time and would then be in accession negotiations to try to get back in so the position of Scotland in that interim period before it had negotiated accession would be as a country outside of the outside the UK but outside of the EU as well which would be a very different sort of relationship that would be probably closer to the sort of thing sort of discussions we have with countries at the moment such as Norway and Iceland but we would have to clearly look if there was a vote for Scotland to leave the UK there would be a long period of negotiations where we try to work out these types of issues but it would certainly be complicated so I don't have the immediate answer to where the Concordat I suppose there would no longer be a need for the Concordat in such a situation presumably or it's uncharted territory I think that there would be plenty of other things to worry about um the I mean it is a it would be you would anticipate there would be negotiations because the Concordat would no longer apply and there would have to be negotiations in terms of what our quota share was and how the regulatory system works because I mean the Fishing fleet in my experience largely identifies itself as a UK business that has a lot of cross-border business whether that's in the process sector or the catching sector so I mean the Concordat is simply an agreement between the four UK ministers on the details of how we manage fishing opportunities within the UK bearing in mind it's devolved so heavily we just need a few core principles and conventions about how we behave in relation to each other in the interest of everybody and as you say the industry who are not necessarily all great fans of this Concordat do work across borders I mean a lot of the fish caught by the Scottish fleet are using quota least from English companies it's not actually Scottish quota it's English quota but least within the UK to Scottish vessels and that's the benefit of both parties so that's absolutely fine but it reflects the way in which the internal UK flexibility is present if Scotland were to leave the UK then obviously the Concordat would no longer apply to Scotland and we'd have a whole host of new arrangements to negotiate one final question you mentioned the system of leasing quotas that happens within the UK you'll be aware that the Scottish Government at the moment have a moratorium on certain aspects of that and are planning to have a consultation into the operation of leasing the driver for that is concerns from fleets and on harbours about the cost of leasing there's increasing upward pressure on the cost of leasing do you recognise what is leading to the consultation but have you had any thoughts on how the system currently works on the operation of the moratorium at the moment this would be a matter the way the quota is allocated to different producer organisations would be a matter for the Scottish Government to look at the Scottish Government to make it clear they do want to look at that and that's why their intention to have a consultation we've looked at this in a smaller way in England in the sense that there had been some quota that was being underused by the producer organisations and so one of the things we're doing with very modest changes to try to take some of that unused quota and move it to the under 10 metre pool for the smaller inshore vessels who felt that they were not getting a fair enough deal is that even doing a very modest step like that was very contentious and controversial in some parts of the industry so I think it's quite difficult to unravel these systems that have been set up over a long period of time but there's no harm in having a consultation I suppose that's what the Scottish Government wants to do but I think there's a danger of these things that you end up with uncertainty in the industry and producer organisations have got quite good at swapping quota and leasing quota in order to match the quota that they have with phishing opportunities that are available so I think my view would be that people should proceed cautiously with revolution in that area but I can understand there's always going to be anomalies and issues of that that the Scottish Government's got a right to look at I'm a right in thinking that you wanted to have totally transferable quotas that could be sold around the EU from the British Government's perspective well I think this comes back to the point that John Robs was mentioning earlier there had been some discussions at an e-level about transferable phishing concessions I think it was cool at the time and that's an agenda that didn't go any further it was before I became Fisheries Minister so although I've got up to speak with everything that's current in debate I don't know John, is there anything further you want to add to the debate from two years ago? I think the key point is that you don't know about it Minister which reflects the fact that it's no longer current as an issue it's an old closed issue Thank you Sir Humphrey Tell me what I need to know Jamie McGregor has a question about West Coast Not about the West Coast My question really is recently our First Minister made a speech in Bruges and on phishing he said that we propose a practical common sense approach to membership which means that there is no detriment none whatsoever to any other member of the European Union as a result of Scotland's continuing membership Now given that there will be a negotiation of which the UK will be in charge of regarding the uncertain position of Scotland's future within the EU and as you clearly recognise phishing will be an important part of that is there a risk of a worse end point for the Scottish phishing industry than the present status quo? I think that's always the case and it will be the case on a lot of other fronts when a country tries to join the European Union and goes through the accession process and tries to seek the agreement of all the other member states that they should be allowed in you suddenly find that all the other member states have got a lot of demands that they come up so that's an inevitable part of an accession negotiation and yes I would be obviously the case to leave the UK, leave the EU and then seek to negotiate re-entry Can I have a small question on the whiskers? No not at this moment let's try and deal with this matter first I thought you were going to ask about bronze which you asked for early but we'll see how we've got time the ministers and ours but Dave Thompson on that point Yes Minister just to follow up on the point you've just made I would dispute the fact that we would be out of the EU in September when we get our yes vote if the Scottish people decide that we'll still be in the UK and the EU for 18 months and many many eminent people have said that's more than enough time to get the bulk of the toughest negotiations out of the way but there's a problem for the EU if your scenario is correct and Scotland was out with the EU because the EU when it negotiates with countries like Norway and Iceland and Faro and so on and swapping quota with these countries to allow 12 European nations who fish in Norway, Iceland's waters and so on a huge amount of the chips, the bargaining chips that Europe has are actually bargaining chips that come from Scotland's seas therefore if Scotland is out of Europe does not have those bargaining chips to bargain with and the agreements which currently allow these other 12 European countries to fish in Norway, Icelandic and Faro's waters would need to be renegotiated without the benefit of the massive bargaining chips in Scotland's water so it is in Europe's interests and the interests of those 12 countries in particular to make sure Scotland is in Europe at the end of the 18 months otherwise their fishing industries are going to suffer very severely well look in any negotiation both sides have some chips I mean this is starting to sound a bit like a hustings for the referendum campaign for reasons for reasons I can entirely understand but I mean the only thing I would say a lot of the fish landed in Scotland process in Scotland is also through the European Union I think Scotland should want to remain part of the UK and part of the European Union because I think it's the best outcome for its fishing industry and its industry generally and that's my own personal view for a Cornishman to tell Scots what they should decide in the referendum that's coming up but that I just think there's a degree of uncertainty for the industry in leaving the UK, leaving the EU and then going through an accession process and a re-negotiation to try to get back in to the European Union with 28 other member states with a list of demands and I think it shouldn't be something that the country should decide to do lightly Let's move on Claudia Beamish on research I think and things like that and to scientific research both from a UK perspective and perhaps your thoughts on what's going forward from an English perspective taking into account the regionalisation How does this in your view inform sustainable fisheries and the marine environment we've had the aquaculture bill recently which came before this committee which is now an act and there's also the complexities of other sectors in our waters and how that fits with the changing patterns which are being affected by climate change and of course biodiversity as well just to set the scene Absolutely and as I said in my opening remarks the marine environments are incredibly complex environment which means no man made policy is ever going to be perfect I think we've come quite a long way in terms of the methodology of assessing maximum sustainable yield and it's a constant process of trying to refine that but obviously we've got the ICs advice the international advice which is respected the world over for the work that it does on MSY for our part we've got in England CFAS who do a lot of work for us survey work we've got survey vessels that are out there monitoring stocks that information into ICs to help inform their work in this area and we've also been really keen to encourage partnerships more partnerships between scientific communities and the fishing community there's been some great examples around the country where you've managed to break down those barriers and the suspicion and frequently come across fishermen who are suspicious of the science and claim that it's out of date and I think the way we can address that is by having more of these partnerships where the fishing industry and the scientific community work more closely to agree a consensus on the state of stocks I mean we hope that eventually the stage after the discard plans which are currently being put together there'll be a discard plan for the Pelagics next year and then a discard plan for the Whitefish fleet the year after that after that point groups will focus their attention on multi-annual management plans and we'd like to move to a situation where MSY becomes absolutely at the core of those plans and informing those plans and where increasingly we can get ever more sophisticated understanding of things like predation patterns between different fish species and how different stocks interact with one another so that rather than having just an arbitrary for an individual species you might start to be able to move to something that's more sophisticated and looks at groups of species and the interactions they have with one another and as I said that's an incredibly complex step but we should be constantly looking to evolve the policy so that it's ever able to address some of these complexities in the system so I think the scientific advice can be really important under the new CFP agreement there's a commitment to be fishing at MSY for all species by 2019 or 2020 and for those where it's possible literally from next year so we are already well on the way to having MSY as the key objective of the policy Can I just clarify in terms of I'm a strong support of regionalisation and that way of going forward but can I just clarify what sort of arrangements there are for sharing between the different regions the scientific research and the ways forward are there actual processes for that Well obviously the most essential level it's done through the fact that everybody feeds in all sorts of science to ICs who then lead on recommendations but John is there anything else between the other countries in the North Sea and North Western Waters group? I'm not aware of formal regional structures but there are strong relationships between the scientists in the different countries for example around the North Sea or in Western Waters they know each other pretty well and there's a lot of co-operation there's joint projects if you want EU funding contributors from more than one member state it's one of the key requirements so there are various means of doing it but there's not a formal regional structure that I'm aware of If a question just now about the coastal communities funds I think this was something related to the Crown Estates distribution of these but also in terms of the access for fishing effort into those funds did you have anything that you could say about that just now? I think the main thing to say is that this doesn't come under the responsibility of DEF but I am aware that some concerns have been raised on that fund and I think I'm right in saying that the Treasury and a number of other organisations are looking at the issue of transparency on this and to try to address some of the concerns that have been raised I think from the coastal communities fund from memory Scotland we've got just short of £8 million last year which supported around 38 projects so of the just over 100 or so projects UK wide around 38 of them were in Scotland so it didn't look at the face of it as though Scotland was getting less than its fair share of that fund but look I know concerns have been raised and these are concerns that the Government takes seriously so they are looking at this issue I thought I would raise it just now so that we have it on the record for future analysis but thank you for that and Jamie McGregor prawns Very kind I'm an MSP for the Highlands and Islands region which covers most of the grounds for prawn fishing and scallop fishing particularly which are both important sectors to the Scottish economy but in terms of these fleets the boats are quite small and a lot of them are very old and I think in relation to the same thing would apply I think to some of your west coast Cornish fleets as well in relation to the funds you were talking about earlier and you talked about the need the funds being on the basis of need there is a very definite need to get these fleets up to scratch as to convergence so do you see this fisheries fund being able to do that and I know you've increased it and will it go to the areas where it's really needed and are you responsible for ensuring that or is that a question for Mr Lockhead Well in Scotland it is a question for Mr Lockhead because as John Robbs pointed out earlier how the Scottish Government chooses to allocate that ENFF fund is very much a matter for the Scottish Government what I can say is under the old EFF fund there was at that point an opportunity for boats to buy new engines replacement engines for their boats provided that they were either less powerful or certainly no more powerful than the engine that was there previously so provided it wasn't increasing fishing effort I don't think I don't think it was available for buying new boats but it was available for equipping those more effectively and in particular a lot of the EFF fund and we hope the EFF fund in England is going to be used to invest in more selective net gear and when it comes to the nephrop fisheries actually more selective net gears being quite successful in terms of making sure they're not getting bycatch and not catching juvenile stock Is anything more John's out of that note? It is a matter for Richard Lockhead I'm glad you don't know what nephrops means Well they're called all sorts Linguistines, nephrops or prawns depending on which part of the captry you're from I'd just like to thank you very much for this wide-ranging and robust discussion that we've had about the current EFF and the new one It's pretty useful for us to get the measure of what's being thought by the UK ministry but it's equally I hope useful for you to hear some of our concerns as the representatives of the rural areas of Scotland in this committee and I would say that we hope that we can repeat that exercise should that be necessary In the terms of our own committee we will be looking at fishing quotas and in parallel with the cabinet secretary's consultation to try and get to the bottom of how they are traded and in whose interests they are traded I'd like to thank you very much George Eustace and John Robbs and we will finish the meeting just now but before I close at the next meeting on the 18th of June the committee will take evidence from around the table of stakeholders on the control of wild geese numbers the petition PE01490 and we'll also consider its work program paper as discussed earlier so thank you very much, I've formally closed the meeting and we shall now adjourn