 Welcome to the 23rd meeting this year of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee. Before we move to the first item in the agenda, I would like to remind everyone that everybody's present so that we can switch off their mobile phones and so on. Apart from people who use tablets, that is the only electronic equipment that they should Cymru mwneud hyn o bobl fydd y Llywodraeth ym Mhwy nid gael awtfyrd yn gweithio ni'r gwaith i ddiwedd yn Llywodraeth. Llywodraeth yn dweud y tro, fi'n annu ei ddweud a gyntaf i Llywodraeth at i ddweud y cwm inviteis, a personnel byw yn gwneud i teulu gyda ni wedi ddyntgaeth i ddechrau i ddawr i ddweud yr ydydd ar ei ddweud ar y gyfnodau, yw eu cyllглиant gan ddaeth isubordinate legislation and we have the first item today to consider the aquaculture fisheries Scotland Act 2013 specification of commercially damaging species order 2014 and the protection of seals designation of haulout sites Scotland order 2014. So members should note that no mention to annull has been received in relation to these instruments and are referred members to the papers. Are there any comments? There are no comments. So has the committee agreed or does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to these instruments? No? Right, that's the committee's will. Thank you. So agenda item 2, Scottish Government's agricultural holdings legislation review group interim report. Second item today is to take evidence from the cabinet secretary Richard Lochhead, who is the chair of the group on the interim report produced by the Scottish Government's agricultural holdings legislation group that follows a session two weeks ago with stakeholders. And we welcome this morning the cabinet secretary Richard Lochhead. Hello, Andrew Thin, Ian Mackay and Hamish Leane. All three of you will be able to take part as well as you have before or if you've not been in the committee remember that the sound is automatic. So I would ask this cabinet secretary if there's any opening statement to make first of all. Thank you very much and good morning to the committee. It's a pleasure to be here with you this morning and I am pleased with the opportunity to say a few opening remarks about the interim report of the review group. I think perhaps at the beginning though it would be good to just ask my colleagues who are with me today just to say a little bit about their role in the group and their background just very briefly before I give a few opening remarks because I'm very very grateful to the very talented members and hard working members we have on the review group which has helped to make this report so effective. So perhaps I'm going to ask Ian Mackay just to say a couple of words and then I'll move on to the table. Hi, thanks Richard. Ian Mackay, I'm a tenant farmer in Isle Mall. I'm also a member of the NFU and work with the new entrance group within the NFU and the new entrance group within the Scottish Government. Andrew Thin, I've fulfilled a wide range of roles in rural Scotland and I hope to bring something of a more broad perspective to the thing. Hello, I'm Hamish Leane. I'm a Solistan private practice based in Aberdeen. I've been accredited by the Law Society as a specialist in agricultural law since 2000. Okay, so can I just say that we've very much welcomed the opportunity to provide you with an update on our progress so far. The interim report was of course published on the 20th of June and marked an important milestone for the future of tenant farming in Scotland. I am very pleased with the warm response that we've received from all the stakeholders in Scotland. They in turn of course have also played an important part in the success of the review so far. Over recent years, we have all aimed to support the tenant farming sector and improve relationships between tenant farmers and their landlords. While some changes have started to work, you know as well as we all do that this is a very complex and emotive area in agriculture and agriculture itself is not a static industry. There are still many practical problems faced by tenant farmers and by those in particular who wish to join the proud tradition of tenant farming in Scotland. Tenet farming is a cornerstone of Scottish agriculture. It also has a role to play in supporting vibrant and sustainable rural communities across this country. That's why I as minister absolutely committed to bringing forward better solutions. I certainly knew that this was never going to be an easy task. The four aims that I set out in the review group were ambitious and very challenging. However, we have already worked hard towards meeting those aims and to deliver our vision for what is a dynamic sector. Our vision is, of course, to have a tenant sector that gets the best in the land, gets the best in the people farming it and provides opportunities for new entrants and forms part of a sustainable future for Scottish farming. As you'll be aware, as part of the process, we set out eight aspirations for the future of the tenant sector in Scotland. I won't go through them just now and I'll discuss them at your recent session. We have engaged with the industry to ensure that we've had the support, however, for those aspirations. Since then, we've focused on identifying the barriers to achieving those aspirations. As part of the process, we have met and talked with over 300 people and received nearly 80 pieces of written evidence. We've also held 10 open meetings in Islay, Bute, Ayr, St Boswells, Dumfries, Rath, Inverness, Blair Athol, Glynlivet, Tarrif, Inveruri and Perth. As you can see, the review group—I've only been at a small number of those meetings—have taken place right across Scotland and been a very important part of the process. Throughout our visits, people have taken time out, away from the spring lambing, the calving, the silage making and whatever, to speak to as many opened their homes and met with us to express their views often behind closed doors because of the nature of some of those issues that they wanted to raise with us. We're also very grateful to the stakeholder organisations who have discussed these issues very frankly with us and indeed with each other, and have gone to great efforts to help facilitate the visits and wider engagements that have taken place across Scotland's farms. The willingness of stakeholder organisations to engage with each other and to have honest and frank discussions has been one of the most positive outcomes of the process so far. A great example of this proactive approach is the joint initiative in rent reviews announced by the National Farmers Union, the Scottish Tenant Farms Association and the Scottish Land States, which, of course, was in the news just a couple of weeks ago. Andrew Thin played a very important role in brokering that agreement and that agreement aims to bring stability and peace of mind to those involved in the rent review process following the very prominent recent uncertainties that have been in the news. I strongly welcome the dedication and co-operation that has shown to all those three organisations and by their representatives in particular, Nigel Miller, David Johnson and Christopher Nicholson. I, of course, as Minister, very much look forward to seeing that initiative develop and I would urge all of the industry, including land agents and their legal representatives, to follow the recommendations that are set out in this joint memorandum. I think that it's really important that the whole of the industry, all sides of the industry, throw their weight behind that and make it work and make it happen. Over the summer, we have focused on the next stage of our work and the three main work streams, firstly establishing a stable and effective framework for secure 1991 tenancies, secondly creating a new and flexible framework to stimulate diverse other tenancy arrangements and thirdly, of course, ensuring a much more supportive, wider cross-cutting context for the whole of the tenant farming sector in this country. Although it's necessary for the group to have space to developer thinking in private, we will continue to draw on advice and seek contribution from individuals on specific issues in the coming months. During the autumn, we will engage further with stakeholders to discuss our thinking around potential draft recommendations. By late autumn, we will then begin preparing our final report. At this stage, it will be wrong for me and my colleagues here today to comment on some of the specific detail of our most recent discussions before our views are finally fully formed and agreed. However, we look forward to today's discussion. We will be as frank as we can with you and as open as we can be against that backdrop, because of many of the important issues that people want to hear about and you'll want to ask about. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this with you today. I read the official report from your evidence-taking in the last week or two, and that was very illuminating and helpful as well. Thank you for your work as a committee. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I'd like to talk about the remit of the group. If there are any limiting factors in developing the recommendations to deliver the vision for the sector, by focusing on remarks that were made by Christopher Nicholson of the STFA, because I get the sense that tenant farmers around the country are the absolute anchor to rural communities. He expressed it in terms of the future of tenant farming families and their wider role in fragile rural communities in order to make sure that that is part of the consideration of the group. However, the remit has been more process-driven, but the realities of life in the countryside seem to me in many places, islands in particular, but in many parts of the rural areas. The tenant farmers are the actual grassroots of farming as it was that need to have a focus that allows them to choose where they live as well as choose how they live. That's a good question to start with. As I said in my opening remarks, one of our key aspirations is to ensure that tenant farming plays a key role in underpinning a rural economy in this country. That's why so many of the issues that the review group are addressing are very important from that starting point. If we want active agriculture in this country, where tenant farming plays a crucial role in delivering that, and we want tenant farming and family farming to be the bedrock of many of our rural communities, then farmers need to attract investment, they need access to land, they need land to farm. That's why all those issues are so absolutely important for the future of Scotland's rural economy. I give that assurance to our tenant farmers in Scotland that the driving aspiration of all of our work is to ensure that the contribution of tenant farming to Scotland's economy and putting food on our tables continues. I'm sure that we'll come to those in more detail in a minute, but clearly the ability to make sure that there is more land for letting in due course when we look at the way in which land has come out of agriculture and asked ourselves, you know, are we going to be able to see more land being made available because that reduction of hundreds of thousands of hectares is something that I think we really must look at in terms of the outcome that you drive for in the group's work, and it certainly seems to me that these reductions with 1006 fuel holdings since 2007 suggest that there's got to be some way to eventually release the land for more tenancies and start-up units and so on. Yes, and I'll ask colleagues to chip in at any point they want to because this is quite an important subject in broad-ranging. The key point to make, however, in response to your question, is that yes, there has been a decline in teneted land in Scotland. Of course, that's one of the primary reasons why we're all here in the first place discussing this, and it's been quite a substantial reduction, as illustrated by the statistics coming back to 1982, where there's been a reduction of 42 per cent over that period of let land in Scotland. However, a reduction of let land does not equate to a reduction in land in agricultural production, because a lot of that land is now owned, therefore the land, much of it, not all of it, but much of it, is still being farmed, and that's from Scotland's perspective a very important point to make clear. However, I think that the thrust of your question was, is the review group going to bring forward measures to increase the amount of let land in Scotland, and that touches on a whole range of areas from fiscal measures, taxation, etc., to some of the recommendations that we may come out with. However, I'll invite colleagues to come in on what's on our broad question, although Andrew wants to come in. Make a few points. Scotland is one of the lowest percentages of let land in Europe, and I think it's worth making that point as a context to your point. Of course, it's absolutely correct that just because land's gone out of tenancy doesn't mean it's gone out of farming, it may well still be in farming, but we're missing an opportunity there, because we're not enabling external capital to come into this sector. Externally and historically, people invested in land as a low-risk, low-return investment, and what's happened in recent times is that investors have come to see it as a low-return, high-risk investment, and that makes them nervous. That's why there's less investment in tenanted land. We set out very clearly, I think, in an interim report, that the fundamental thing that we have to address is confidence in this sector. Confidence among tenants to invest and confidence amongst landowners to invest is not one side or the other. Both sides must be confident. It's a fundamental truism of any economy, whether it was this sector or whether we were talking about retail in urban Edinburgh, unless investors are confident whether the owners of the shops or the tenants of the shops that sector will not grow. Any of the surveys looked at the way in which the land is being used that's no longer tenanted in the traditional fashion. I know that we're talking about farmed in hand and the like, but is it being as productive as it would have been if tenanted farmers were active on it from the point of view of Scotland's gross feed product? In terms of the big picture, there's a decline in let land, which is defined, I understand, as land that's let for more than a year. There's also more owned land in agricultural production and more seasonal let's. Of course, in terms of the future of tenant farming, there are very relevant statistics, because anyone wanting to farm land under a tenancy will want some kind of long-term security, and a predominance of seasonal let's or owned land, which reduces the amount of land available for letting, clearly influences to what extent they can have that security. That's why the issues that we're discussing have been giving the certainty, the confidence to the whole of the sector, but particularly to tenant farmers to feel they can make a living and have the critical mass of land available to make that happen. Various issues are so important. Utilisation of land is very important. It's not just that we'll create more tenancies. There's tenancies out there that are in tenancy just now and we'd like to see or aid people to retire out of them and allow a new generation into those tenancies, so the utilisation of that land is properly. All the economics that go along with that in rural areas, that's really important as well. Okay, thanks very much. I think that's... See you at that point. Sorry, thank you, convener, and thank you, Mr McKay, for that comment. Can I just try and get some sense of how significant that is, please? I guess as a layman in this context, I really have no idea how productive land can be and how much more productive it can be if it's well managed. Are we talking about a factor of one to three from somebody who manages it well to somebody who doesn't, or would good management give you 10% more rather than three times as much? To give you technical figures, I wouldn't be able to give you, but if you wanted to go and look at QMS's figures for the top third who produced in this country, in the bottom third that produced in this country, you can see a massive gap there, so there is a lot of room for improvement of utilisation of land in this country. Okay, thank you. Okay, let's move on to some of the aspirations of the review group then. Graham Day, thank you, convener, and good morning. When Nigel Miller was in front of us last week, he said in terms of the aspirations, we must be a lot smarter. Rather than doing what we did before, we have to create new opportunities. We must consider ways of encouraging more diverse use of the rural economy. We must also be a bit more imaginative. Can I ask what's smart and imaginative approach is the review group considering in order that the eight aspirations referred to Ella by the Cabinet Secretary can be met? Fundamentally about new letting vehicles, one of the work streams that the group is looking at at the moment is a form of agricultural tenancy going forward, which would allow flexibility of arrangements between landlord and tenant with a view to encouraging more land becoming available for let and to allow the parties a certain latitude to negotiate the terms of their own particular agreement subject to certain fundamental safeguards being in place. Is that the same, essentially, as contract farming? No, contract farming is something different. Contract farming is essentially driven by two main motivations. First of all, there's a fiscal motivation. The owner of the land wants to be seen as a farmer for taxation purposes, particularly in regard to inheritance tax and the reliefs that are available for agricultural property, but also historically at least because of a fear of security of tenure by letting out land. In a contract farming arrangement, the farmer in inverted commas contracts with someone who might, in other circumstances, have been his or her agricultural tenant, but the contract arrangement provides for the actual farming policy on the farm and provides for usually a basic return returning to the farmer, a return being paid to the contractor and a surplus then being divided in whatever proportions the parties agree. The new letting vehicle wouldn't be contract farming in that sense. It would be a landlord-tenant relationship. Given that the industry is calling for smart and imaginative approaches, have there been any suggestions from there as to the things that might be implemented that you're considering beyond what we've just discussed? Yes, we've had a lot of suggestions from the industry, but could I just step back slightly and just contextualise your question a wee bit? Large chunk of the talented sector is secure in 1991 tenancies, which in a sense provide the backbone for the talented sector. We need in Scotland, in addition to that, to develop a range of much more flexible letting vehicles used as the term that's just been used. The innovative side, if we look forward over the next 20 years there will be a backbone bit to this industry and there will be an innovative flexible new bit to this industry and that's how all industries develop ideas, develop in one bit and then get transferred into the other bit. So an awful lot of what we've had from the industry has been about how to ensure stable, confident relationships in the 1991 secure bit, the backbone. Much less, but to an extent we've had some reasonable suggestions around the flexibility bit. In particular we've had some quite good suggestions actually from the land earning sector. They see that because they're invested in the capital, they see that as an opportune area. I think there is a growing recognition, I wouldn't put it more strongly, that there's a growing recognition that those who are involved in the backbone bit depend on the innovation driven by the other bit because one feeds the other over time. I think it's fair to say that we've still got our work cut out to come out with a really good answer to the innovative bit because it's not only about flexible vehicles, it's also about how do we enable people who are not in this industry at all who are doing something else, the real innovators of life. How do we get them into this sector to drive change through it? That is going to be very difficult, I don't think that we should hide from that. Thank you. I think to get innovation in this industry is we need to create opportunity. The innovation is out there, it's already there, there's plenty of examples out there of agricultural practitioners who are very innovative and a lot of modern ideas coming out in agriculture. It's the opportunity, it's very hard to legislate for innovation, it's what we need to do is create the opportunity. I thank you, convener. I would entirely agree with that last remark of Mr MacKyde, and I'm just on that very subject, particularly in regard to one of the aims of this review, which is to encourage new entrants to make it easier for them to enter the industry. Can I ask specifically whether one of the, whether you have looked at the example of share farming, which is, I know it's practice in New Zealand, I'm sure it's practice done, which provides exactly that outcome. Is that something that's being looked at? We are very keen on all these examples from the rest of the world, and one other positive element of this review is the good information we're gathering in about what's happening in this country, and we've got a really good basis of data for the first time ever, but also what's happening the rest of the world, and that's why I think the interim report is good that way, because it's looking at what's just happening here but the rest of the world as well, and we've got to learn from that. So share farming is something that's often been mentioned to me as Minister for the last few years, and I think the review group now has the opportunity to focus on new ideas like that and how they could be implemented in a Scottish context. I don't know if anyone else has got anything to comment. This industry is not that different from others in a way. Any industry that suffers from high barriers to entry struggles to invite and struggles to develop. The barriers to entry in the sense of someone becoming the sole proprietor of a farm, barriers to entry are pretty high, level of capital involved is enormous. You can lower those barriers significantly if a landlord puts the capital up and you become a tenant, but you still need capital for working capital, quite substantial. So the workstream on new entrants and innovation is looking at a route map, which draws not just from other countries but from other industries. So on the whole, if you take another industry, the normal way into it for innovators is you start working in that industry, then you start doing a bit in your garage while you're still working in that industry, and then you make stepping stones through. What we're trying to map out in that workstream is exactly those stepping stones through. Okay, that's quite reassuring, thank you. Very good. We'll move on from there, I think, to Nigel Don now. Probably the right to buy, Nigel. Indeed, if I would just, we'd left on at speed. I heard what the cabinet secretary said about the 1991 workstream, so it might be that you're not going to be able to say very much, but I would certainly be interested to know where you feel we might be going with right to buy in 1991 tenancies. I'm trying to... Or any other. Well, yes, I mean... That's the issue. Sure. Well, clearly we took a view that we want to look at that issue because you can't look at the future of tenant farming in Scotland without looking at the right to buy debate, and many tenant farmers, as you're aware, want us to look at that, and that's why we're doing that. So it has featured very much in our work so far. Many people have put it to the committee there are circumstances where the right to buy is perhaps the only way forward, and it's the best option. Therefore, in our interim report, we have recognised that. We've still got a lot of work to do over the next few months to reach a final view on what role right to buy has to play, but, quite clearly, there are examples out there where it's very difficult to see any alternative to allow that land to be used productively and for the family concerned to have a viable future and a better future. So that's where we are at the moment as we very much recognise the case that's been put to us that there are circumstances where it could be justified, but we've got a lot of work to do to see under what circumstances it could be implemented, what the consequences of that would be, and how far it should go. I think the evidence that we've heard suggests that a lot of the issues might be dealt with by modifying WAGO, a right of assignation for example. I take it those are issues which you're also considering as ways of dealing with the whole area of 1991. Yes, I mean there are so many issues here to ensure that tenant farming remains attractive, and as I said before, the primary ingredients are giving comfort to anyone wanting to take on a farm. It's going to be viable that they are able to invest in it and get a return from running the farm, and they can see a long-term future and they can plan for that. Ian sitting next to me is a tenant farmer, sees in a much better position to explain what someone requires to make a living out of tenant farming, so maybe I should hand over to Ian, but in terms of the wider approach to this, that's what we're looking at, so we can supply that confidence in that long-term future for farmers. That's absolutely right, it's building confidence, and the confidence that you can invest as a tenant farmer when you have a period long enough that you can invest in agriculture and see that return. There is a long-term return on agriculture, there's no doubt about that, and that needs to be aware from the landowner's point of view as well that he has to be investing for a long term as well. The short-term return within land ownership or agriculture just isn't there, so we need to build towards security and confidence in each other to move it forward. It's a compensation that we're going. All those issues clearly are all featured in the report and are crucial to give confidence in terms of investment on farm and who gets a return from that. I get the impression that this is clearly a working progress and we look forward to developments. I agree. I look forward to developments in all of this because this is something that needs to be settled because I don't think there is any doubt at all that the mere mention of a right to buy has had a huge impact over the years on the amount of land that people have been prepared to let. Confidence, I totally agree, is absolutely key to all of this, as Andrew Thin mentioned in his earlier remarks, and I think that Ian Mackay has just said that you need confidence on both sides of this equation. The landlord has to have confidence not just to invest but to let the land in the first place. My question is quite simple. How do you instill that confidence in those that have land to let? How do you instill the confidence to let it when a right to buy exists, especially if that right to buy is absolute rather than preemptive? Is it possible to achieve that level of confidence with an absolute right to buy in place? We live in a world where there is always going to be debates over all kinds of issues. All political parties in the Parliament have the responsibility to deliver that confidence, and we are wanting to give long-term confidence to landowners in Scotland to let land. However, having paid close attention to this debate for many years, I do not think that we should get bogged down by always thinking that the amount of land that is being made available to let is only influenced by the right to buy debate. There is a whole range of factors out there. Land is a very valuable, overpriced asset in Scotland. Therefore, ownership of land is seen as a good thing to have. There is a whole range of factors. There is how the common agricultural policies delivered and how the payments are distributed. There is the flexibility that is required by Andrew Thins, who is referring to in terms of that. We all meet farmers in our constituencies, and a farmer will own a farm, he will have another farm that he lets, and he will have a whole series of seasonal lets over and above that. Speaking to a farmer last week, my constituency has all these things. That is a business decision that that particular farmer has taken. There is a whole range of commercial considerations and business decisions out there that influence how land is let and when it is let and what vehicles are used for letting land. The right to buy debate is about secure tenancies. Let land and the whole debate is about a whole range of vehicles. The right to buy debate, of course, is only about secure tenancies. There is no one on this planet who has ever suggested that I am aware of the automatic right to buy for other kinds of land that is only in terms of secure tenancies. That is a debate over secure tenancies. I absolutely hear what the cabinet secretary says, and I have no doubt that he intends that to be the case. This has been the element in the room now since 2002, when your colleague Fergus Ewing first mentioned it in the Rural Affairs Committee. With great respect, I think that many of these short-term lets, annual lets and grazing lets and other contract farming, a lot of these have come in as a way around letting land on any sort of permanent basis. I absolutely hear what you say, but I do think that the biggest inhibitor of people letting land has been this talk of right to buy. I have not really got a question, but what I do want to say is that I do hope that whatever the review group comes up with, even if it includes a right to buy in some aspect, it can really put a lid on frankly the fear that has been engendered by just it being in the air, by it being the elephant in the room, because I really do feel that it has been the greatest constriction of land being let in so far. That is where you do make a fair point, and I think I speak for the review group to say we are absolutely determined that this is a landmark review and allows us to move on, and we want to come forward with substantive fundamental changes, no doubt, some radical proposals that will allow us to give certainty to everyone involved in agriculture Scotland in terms of this particular subject and gives the vision and puts the tools in place to make the vision happen, and then hopefully it will be a landmark review. There is quite a close correlation between cap and the amount of land that was let and land that was taken back in hand. Yes, right to buy does play a part in it, but it has been used as an elephant in the room too often to say, well, this is the reason we are taking land back in hand, and it is actually the way that cap had been paid in the past. It was far too easy to claim agricultural subsidies and not actually carry out agricultural activity in line. I think we will probably take that as far as we can, but I share the aspiration that the cabinet secretary has just given words to us. Can I make two brief points on this? The first is confidence comes from certainty. What matters is that people feel that they know what is going to happen. That is the absolute fundamental. The second is, and it has been at the guts of this review, is that we need to understand what is driving the calls for a right to buy, because if we do not address that, then the calls for a right to buy will continue, and so uncertainty will continue. That is the fundamental. The review group could say, yes, there should be a right to buy, no, there should not, whatever. That will not produce certainty unless it also addresses the reasons behind the calls. A big challenge, particularly if it is the land-owning sector, is to understand what it is that has led to these calls and to address those causes. I wonder if I could just throw in a little bit here, because I hear what the cabinet secretary says about no alternative to dealing with the impasse of certain secure tenants and the difficulties of working your way through that. We look forward to that. However, it has been clear to me that land could be let in the way that is possible in crofting. I have said this before, but I will repeat it just now. What do you think about this? There is a right to buy for crofters. It has been the case since 1976. It is the case also that we have subsequently made it possible to create new crofts and that they do not have a right to buy attached to them. Is that one of the considerations that you might look at in terms of the creation of new holdings in Scotland for rent for agriculture, rather than just crofting? Yes, we are looking at that. Of course, we are aware of the land reform, review groups' recommendations relating to small holdings, and we are aware of the fact that in some parts of Scotland, of course, you can turn your small holding into a croft and therefore get it right to buy. With great difficulty, that does not apply to other parts of Scotland with the small holdings. We are taking that on boards. I do not have any members who want to comment specifically on small holdings. I am not on small holdings, but I will turn to your specific point. The whole conversation around right to buy, as the current secretary said, has been about the 1991 secure tenancies. What we need to do is to, over the next 20 years, very significantly expand the supply of other types of tenancies—much more flexible, much more diverse range of tenancies. There is no suggestion that there would be, at the moment, of a right to buy in there. If we are also successful in addressing the underlying causes of the calls for the right to buy, that will lead to a significant stability. The next question is from Jim Hume. We have covered some of the points that I would like to put in the record. I think that we do have to get trust back into the system. It would be interesting to hear what other areas, apart from the way of going, are, obviously, a sign that it seems important that there are other things such as rent reviews, which could also be up for reform. We are interested in how far we think we can go with that. The Scottish Land and the States put it on the record that they were concerned that the report would only concentrate on 1991 act tenancies and that they would consider that it should not be looked at in isolation. With all that in mind, I would be interested to see what you think you can get out of all that reform and what timeline we are talking to, because I do not think that we can get total trust and confidence back in the system unless we are where we are and when everybody knows where they are and they can move on. You mentioned specifically rent reviews. I might ask your colleagues to come in on that. The particular has been heavily involved in that issue recently, but there are a whole range of issues. On the timescale, the Government wants to legislate as soon as we practically can once we have the recommendations. We cannot give an exact time table clearly because we do not know what the recommendations are and how easy it will be to legislate and what the recommendations are and how many will require legislation. Some of the recommendations, I am confident, will not require legislation. There will be other issues. At this point in time, we are absolutely determined that certainty will be given to the industry as soon as practically as possible. In terms of the Government's position, we will legislate as quickly as possible and use whichever vehicle is most appropriate. There are a number of opportunities coming up in this Parliament if at all possible. The intention is to look for opportunities in this Parliament, but I cannot give a cast and guarantee any of these issues until we know what the recommendations are. It depends on the complexity and the legality surrounding recommendations. In terms of other issues, it is probably an appropriate time to ask colleagues to give one or two examples of what they have seen as key issues that we have to address if they have come forward from various meetings around the country and their work so far. I invite members to give any specific example of what they want to kick off in the right reviews, because the right reviews are top of the question that you mentioned. It is important to be clear that confidence is not just the job of government. The industry initiative on rents is a powerful signal of what could be done and I hope will be done so that it is not really—yes, the Government has had an important catalytic role, but it is an industry-led thing. We are thinking about and I think that we will probably make some recommendations, which are not recommendations for the Government but will be recommendations for the sector. These will be around issues relating to the potential role of self-regulation, which is effectively what the rent agreement is about. It is guidelines combined with self-regulation. Potential role for self-regulation in this sector is the importance of leadership in this sector. In my experience from working in other parts of the economy, where you have got industry bodies at loggerheads with each other, that damages confidence. Where you have got industry bodies working in a constructive collaborative environment, that strengthens confidence. Leadership is very important and we will need to say some things about that. In that mix, and a very important ingredient in that mix, is the role of professional intermediaries, professional agents, whatever you want to call them. They are often not intermediaries in the true sense because they are working for one side. The role of those people in helping to build confidence, and therefore operating in a politically sensitive and astute manner is absolutely fundamental. I think that it is important that the review group at the end of this process is absolutely clear that where we have recommendations that are not for Government but are for the sector and the players in the sector, we are very clear about those. I think that they will, but I do very much hope that all the players in the sector will listen to that and play their part. It is vital that they do that. Diversification is another key issue. You know, allowing investment in rural areas, often fragile rural areas, and making that process a lot smoother. Making the agricultural holding more dynamic and more resilient diversification plays a huge part in that, so making that a more smooth transition to getting diversification is what would help them. What has encouraged me is that, as the groups progress, it seems to have galvanised thinking amongst the stakeholder bodies, who themselves are now promoting initiatives with regard to fixing the problems within the sector. SLE's recent announcement about anamnus state in respect of compensation claims for improvements was a good example of that. An outgoing tenant claiming compensation for an agricultural improvement is hidebound by procedural rules, the necessity to have served a notice in advance before carrying out the improvements and so on. That was an issue that was raised with the group at various meetings across the country. SLE proposes a means of fixing that by, in essence, doing away with the need to have served a notice in advance. That is a helpful suggestion. The discussions among the stakeholder groups facilitated by Andrew, which has led to the recent announcement about rent review initiative. That is another example of that. I put on the record that, two weeks ago, we saw quite a difference when we had the Scottish land in the States NFUS and the STFA here in the body language. The words that we were saying, which we all thought was quite constructive, were, of course, not all people out there. There are members of NFUS, Scottish tenant farmers association or SLE, which is something that we have to bear in mind, of course. They may be leaders, but they are not rulers. Dave Thompson and Claudia Beamish. You can hear it, but just on the point of consensus, at last week's session, both the NFUS and the STFA expressed the view that it would be helpful to have a mandatory co-repractice for land agents in the sector. I am sure that you were taking reams of evidence on the issues of the conduct of rent reviews. Is that something the review group is likely to come to a view upon and make recommendations on? Does it really sit out with what you are trying to do? Your question links in very nicely to Jim Hume's finishing point, which is that, whilst there is a lot more constructive working across the sectors, ultimately the people you met and that we deal with do not have control over every single landowner, landlord or tenant farmer in Scotland. That then leads us to the debate of voluntary versus statutory in terms of taking forward some of these issues. Clearly, not just from a selfish Government point of view and not wanting to legislate too much, but from the terms of building a better atmosphere environment in Scotland, the voluntary route, of course, is the best route because it just leads to more constructive relationships and, as I said, a better environment in which to work and to live. Therefore, that is a preference, of course it is, and we welcome the recognition from all sectors that working together is really important and that we have many common objectives here. One of my main issues is that we have to, as a country, recognise we need people in this country to work the land and produce food. That is the interests of everyone, whether they are a landlord or a tenant or a member of the public, we want to support that. It is not everyone's interest to drive towards that and make it happen, for commercial reasons as well as for national interests. However, to what extent we have to go down our statutory routes, we will look at carefully, but we cannot look out, of course we cannot. There will be legislative change that will result in this review in one shape or form, but to what extent, where the statutory route applies to is still to be decided and will be guided by experience. We know about the court cases, we know about the controversial issues and we will be guided by how the sectors respond to those issues. If there is an inadequate response, we will be left with no option but to look at the statutory route. If there is a good response and things improve, clearly that takes the heat off the needs for statutory solutions. Dave Thomson, I remember attending a meeting in the Tour Hotel in 2002 about the right to buy. Andrew was there, he was advising, was that the inaugural meeting, I think, of certainly the campaign for right to buy. I moved a motion at the SNP conference later that year on that very subject, which I think maybe helped to move the SNP's position on in relation to that. I am very interested in the subject. That is 12 years ago and we are still talking about it. It is very interesting. If we look at issues such as investment, improvements, compensation, wego, retirement and releasing of lands, succession and so on, a lot of these are a good bit of it I believe could be dealt with through assignation. I know that assignation is not a silver bullet, but to quote Christopher Nicholson of the SDFA, he stated in his oral evidence to us that assignation is potentially a real game changer. A game changer, maybe it is not a silver bullet, but it is pretty important, I would have thought, for the viability of secure tenants in ensuring that investment continues in the future. I would maybe ask the panel to elaborate a bit more. I know that we have already touched on this and talked about it on the issue of assignation, because assignation with certain other changes to the need to register, for instance, right to buy and so on may well be a way forward that would allow us to deal with the issue of right to buy. I would agree with the cabinet secretary by the way that I have not heard anybody other than some members of the NFU Scotland saying that right to buy would apply to non-secure tenants. In my view, every political person I have talked to, apart from one or two, on the Kinaland owner's side are very clear that nobody has ever, and I certainly have never, and that inaugural meeting has never talked about any kind of right to buy other than for secure tenants. On the assignation thing, is that something that would be a game changer and could it deal with much of this problem, if not all of it? That issue is a really important issue, which I think dominates quite a lot of our thinking, and I am sure that all members might want to come in on this particular point, because it relates to omitting up opportunities for future farmers. The security that new entrants or farmers who want to get a more secure tenancy are seeking—clearly it is very relevant to how assignation can play a role—one of the big issues for me in this whole debate is opportunities. We all meet farmers in our constituencies across Scotland who want to farm until the drop because they do not see any way of moving on or opening up opportunities for others to take over their business or their tenancy. So assignation is crucial to all of that and very central. It could potentially be a game changer if we were to find a way of reviewing how or the flexibilities around assignation. One concern that I will put on the table is—I think that Nigel Miller reflected on this when he was giving evidence to you—as soon as you attach a financial value to anything in life, those of the deepest pockets see an opportunity and there is always a danger of consolidation. I do not want to be in a position in agriculture that we have in the fishing industry where consolidation is the result of attaching a value to something that is a fundamental right of people. Therefore, potentially a game changer would have to think very carefully about how it would be introduced if there was a financial value attached to it, but certainly it would open up opportunities if it could be done potentially. I will ask members to give their views because it is something that we are talking about and thinking about. I do not know who wants to come in if we get to that. We are not looking at it very seriously, but we are looking at all aspects of assignation because it would range, I suppose, at one end of the spectrum from a simple right to assign a secure 1991 act tenancy as a secure tenancy to a third party, or perhaps at the other end of the spectrum a right to assign a tenancy that then goes through a conversion process into a fixed duration tenancy of some sort, or somewhere in between the two ends of the spectrum. We are looking at all of that. We are very conscious of the possible unintended consequences as described by the cabinet secretary. If we introduce assignation as an exit route for tenants in order to fund a retirement, that will not necessarily allow tenancies to move on to new entrants, because, of course, the outgoing tenant quite rightly will want to sell at the highest possible price. Another aspect of assignation that we are looking at is whether or not we widen the class of family member who would be entitled to have the tenancy assigned to them. So, all of those things are things that we are actively considering. That was a very brief comment, and I am sure that there will be a game changer if we get it right. The challenge is this issue about consolidation. I would like to put to one side the new entrant, because, as I said earlier, we need a sort of route in for new entrants, and new entrants are not going to step in in one jump. Let me just give you an example of the sorts of quite innovative thinking that might help here. If the rate was to assign into a limited duration tenancy, but the duration was until the incoming tenant was 65, then the value would depend on how young the incoming tenant was. That might help a great deal with the consolidation point. Is that the kind of thinking that needs to be done here? I was just going to back up what Andrew Thunwaith is saying. It does cut across a lot of issues and resolves a lot of problems. It possibly is not a route in for new entrants, although, through SRDP, there is funding available for new entrants. As Andrew Thunwaith says, with timescale and some funding from SRDP, you could possibly compete as a new entrant to get into those assignations. I will be able to afford an assignation. Claudia Beamish, sorry, just before you do it, if it is on that point. Very point, convener. I just wonder whether you are considering, on assignations, would you consider it apt for the land owner of the farm with the tenants being assigned having the right to take on the assignation when it became available? That is a very controversial question, simply because we are trying to protect let land and tenancies in Scotland. Clearly, we have not reached any conclusions at all, and this is one of the issues that certainly came to prominence during the initial stages of the review and the report. Now, we have to look at all the issues that you are discussing today, and we are trying to give you some idea of some of the options that have been discussed. Clearly, we would have to think carefully about the consequences of that in terms of the amount of land that is available in Scotland and so on and so forth. I will leave it at that for now, thank you. Claudia Beamish, yes. Thank you, convener. Good morning to you, cabinet secretary, and to the panel. Could I take us back to investment in relation to the secure tenancies, which you have touched on already in this morning's evidence. In the interim report under the investment section, I was interested, I think it goes from 1.17 to 1.22, I was interested, and I want to preface this remark by saying that I agree with my colleague on the committee, Jim Hume, that there was certainly a positive atmosphere in the evidence-taking that we had from the range of groups when we did that recently, but I just would like comment in 1.18, if I could just read it out, that SLE believes that tenants are currently subject to broadly equivalent flexibilities and constraints to those that characterise the owner-occupied sector, and SLE state lenders tell them that what matters most is a clear and robust business plan, regardless of whether the business operates on owner or rented property, taking into account the wider assets of the business. I would like any comment on that from the panel, and just within the context of remarks and evidence that I have heard from STFA and from individual tenants in South Scotland, where I represent, that the investment is extremely difficult, perhaps specifically because they are tenants, and I would just wonder if, in terms of taking the whole review forward, whether there's any comment on that. Yes, and we've met with some bank representatives to make sure we really understood what we were talking about here. So this is actually not that different from other parts of the economy. Anyone lending money will first of all look at the person that they're lending it to. Are they competent? Are they credible? Have they got a track record? Secondly, they'll look at their business plan. Does it stack up? Thirdly, they'll look at issues around collateral. Now, it's that third area where tenants are in difficulty because they tend not to have collateral of any great extent, and so that's where we've focused our attention. Just to link this back to the assignation point, part, but only I stress part of the attraction of an assignation route is that it potentially creates collateral that would strengthen the tenants' ability to invest, but it's not a silver bullet and it's still the case if a tenant is not credible or hasn't got a business plan that stacks up, they won't get investment, but it undoubtedly would help. That's the message that we got from the bank. I think it becomes increasingly difficult if you're a new entrant because you have no history, you have no credible track record, and when you go, you have some fantastic business plans, possibly better than some of the older, more established tenants in a business plan. All they're looking for is the credibility of your history, so some of the vehicles we're looking at share farming options, it gives you that credibility to then go and look at getting finance. Okay, thank you. Alex Ferguson, hold on now. Yeah, thank you, convener. We've already mentioned quite, in answer to a number of the questions, the variation of tenancy arrangements that exist out with the 1991 secure tenancies, and obviously there are quite a wide range of them, which I don't need to repeat, and although I'm afraid I was unable to be at the meeting two weeks ago, the stakeholders meeting, there was quite a discussion around them, and some of it became quite focused on freedom of contract, about which there was completely opposing views. I think it would be fair to say, shown by, for instance, the Chartered Surveyors in the NFUS, who seemed to be quite in favour of them, and SDFA, who I think said, if business tenants are repeatedly not the answer for the tenanted sector in Scotland. So there's obviously a wide range among stakeholders of the value of some of these things. Also, I noticed that SDFA stated that they were deeply disappointed that the future of limited partnership tenancies seemed to be beyond the range of this review. To sort of start a discussion on all of that going, I just wonder whether the panel, the group has found that the range of current tenancy arrangements has helped move towards the vision that you have or hindered that journey, if I can call it that, and maybe you'd like to comment on, if you can, on what other lessons to be learned from the farm business tenancy system south of the border, or do you envisage that perhaps having a place in the future, or do you think that we need other more innovative ways of approaching the whole issue? Clearly, when we're debating the options for delivering greater confidence and security, the first thing that any prospective tenant or existing tenant will say to you is they need to know they're going to have a farm, two farm, for a substantial amount of time to allow them to invest and make a living. So that's why security tenure is so important in this debate and how we can give long-term certainty to tenants to enable agriculture in Scotland, as well as landlords. Therefore, freedom of contracts, many people argue, of course, is exactly the opposite of that, that long-term security is not exactly the central aim of freedom of contract. However, to pick up on what Andrew Thin said earlier on, looking at the needs of Scottish agriculture and Scottish tenant farming, we need flexible vehicles out there. So that's why we need a mixture, because Scotland is very diverse. I gave examples of farmers. We all meet to a variety of arrangements in place because they have to adapt with farming. Again, I always feel silly sitting next to Ian Mackay talking about what farmers do, but from my experience speaking to farmers, they have to be able to adapt, maybe year on year in some cases, hence seasonal lets, but they need the core farm, the core activity to be secure for the long term. So freedom of contract south of the border is not that popular with many tenant farmers speaking in Scotland, but clearly having a range of vehicles available, we do need more flexibility in some circumstances. So I'll let others come in because we've got a farmer here and others who've been taking a close interest in this as well. The core business needs to be secure, but you need that dynamic movement with other land available. So it does fit in, you know, some structure arrangements do fit in with the agricultural system, but you do need that security. Any of the tenancies I see that work really well, they do have a secure hub, whether it be owner-occupier or a good long-term tenancy, as the basis of our business is vitally important to any agricultural business trying to grow. Can I just do one final point before we open up? Sorry, if you don't mind. I did notice with pleasure, I think, that in the report that there is a sentence for states at the same time we've heard positive stories of great relationships between landowners and tenants that are overcoming all the issues to enable and promote thriving modern tenant farms. I'm glad that was mentioned because there are obviously perfectly good examples around the country or around the country where these arrangements work really well. Have you been able to identify what, if you like, creates that relationship and have you been able to use whatever it is that does? Is there a unifying factor in what creates that relationship factor, maybe the operative word, I'm not sure there, but have you been able to identify anything? If so, are you likely to be able to translate that into the recommendations that you make? There's a work that's been streamed specifically on this relationship issue because it is so fundamental as you absolutely rightly identify. It's very difficult for Governments to legislate to make people behave themselves, and that's a problem in the sense that, for a review like this, how do we produce recommendations about how to have good relationships? That said, I think there are some clear emerging themes here, which is partly just about people behaving themselves, but it's also partly more structural. It's around this issue of so-called intermediaries who are not intermediaries that are acting for one side, and it's around the potential for short-termism to creep into that relationship because, if you're on a short-term contract, you just go and maximise the rent. Never mind whether you've damaged the relationship in the process. We will, I think, make some pretty clear recommendations, which will not be, I don't think, about new statute, but will be about how the sector, and I come back to my point about so much of this is going to be about the sector recognising that, in its own behaviours, that confidence will grow from. It's so important that everybody in this sector understands that, if they sit on their hands and wait for a Government to sort it, A, it won't be sorted, and B, it'll be sorted in a manner that may not be particularly flexible and helpful. It sounds very simple that it's come through from these relationships, but it works very well. It's close communication, just as simple as that. You can't really legislate for that, but it is about communication and understanding what each party wants. I fundamentally agree with that, and thank you for it. Could I turn our mind specifically to the limited partnerships and get some views from the panel on this? I just quote the STFA, which shed in their written evidence some limited partnership tenancies, but must not be brushed under the carpet, or relegated to the all-too-difficult box. Their future will have been complicated by the Salveson Riddle debacle, but STFA would urge the review group to engage with this group of tenants to explore a way forward for them. Within the context of that comment, and there will obviously be different comments from other groups who have commented on this, I have the concerns of one tenant constituent who has a limited partnership post Salveson Riddle that the mediation is not materialising, and he has fears of being, as he puts it, railroaded into the land court. I wonder the degree to which the review will look at this issue, because in terms of the vibrancy of the future tenant sector, it is a serious concern. It is evidence from one constituent, so it may be that it is not more broad, but I want to raise it because I have a concern. I will give a quick overview of my understanding of the debates around the limited partnerships. I am sure that colleagues will want to talk about what extent it will be taken on board by the review in the coming months. First, limited partnerships play an important role in agriculture, but I think that people have persuaded me that the origins of limited partnerships is that it has been seen as an easier alternative to long-term secure arrangements that may have benefited tenant farming in particular in Scotland. Therefore, our challenge is to have alternative vehicles to limited partnerships that provide more long-term security of tenure to the tenant sector. Limited partnerships by their very nature are less secure and can be brought to an end quite easily compared to other arrangements. That is the challenge that we face as the alternatives to limited partnerships and making sure that they are available and attractive and work. In terms of salvage and riddle, the mediation will be put in place, clearly, because the mediation that we are wanting to set up, as we have discussed previously at the committee, for tenants affected by the ruling, involves three parties. Unlike usual mediation, which is between two parties, in this case it is three parties, it is landlord, tenant and Scottish Government. Things are a bit more complicated and we have to get the legalities right before we enter into proper mediation, but it will be delivered. I have asked my officials to give me a report on what progress has been made so that we can make sure that we deliver it very soon, because I am aware of the concerns expressed by the Scottish Tenant Farming Association. I am taking that seriously just to give you some comfort when the mediation will get the arrangements up and running as soon as possible. I will invite other members to come in terms of limited partnerships, the role to play and how we could perhaps address them moving forward. I can say something about limited partnerships. Essentially, from a historical perspective, they were simply a vehicle to avoid security of tenure. That was the sole reason for their creation. Since 2003, general partners in limited partnerships who receive a termination notice have been able to extend their occupation for a period of at least three years beyond the end of the limited partnership by servicing the requisite notices. The Salvis and Riddle case was all about the third February notices that were served as the bill was going through the Scottish Parliament when many landowners, for want of a better word, panicked and served termination notices, even though they were not due to come to an end several years hence. That is what Salvis and Riddle case was all about, and whether or not the retrospective legislation that turned those particular general partners into secure tenants was within the power of the Scottish Parliament or not. Ultimately, we discovered that it was not within the power of the Scottish Parliament. However, there are, looking at the statistics, something like 517 limited partnership tenants still out there as of 2013. Although very, very serious indeed for those affected, the number affected by the Salvis and Riddle case is a relatively small number. I can only echo what the cabinet secretary says about the flexible letting vehicles that we are hoping to introduce. Being a way forward for those general partners, we will give them opportunities to continue an occupation. I have heard that subject. Anyone else who would comment? No. Okay, fine. Claudia Beam has another question about wider cross-cutting contexts. Thank you, convener. We've looked at the broad issues. It's come up several times this morning about the necessity of positive relationships and how, although they can't be legislated for, there is the leadership issue which yourself, Andrew, has raised and others have touched on this. In terms of the supportive wider cross-cutting context, the reviewer, as I understand it, questions whether there are ways of ensuring whether cap and taxation are either neutral or positively encouraging to the letting of agricultural land. The recent announcements on cap reform have included measures under both pillars specifically targeted as we've heard to new entrants, including eligibility for basic farm entitlements, and there is also application to national reserve. At committee on August 6, there was also discussion with stakeholders more broadly about the relationship between landlords and tenants. Issues related to a supportive wider cross-cutting context have been covered in responses to this paper by the remit of the review group, but there are some suggestions in written evidence that there may be other issues that could help with the wider cross-cutting context. Sava outlines the implication of government intentions to convert significant areas of rural land to forestry. Taxation and the hardest but most important area to influence is psychology. Are there further comments other than what has been said this morning on the supportive wider cross-cutting context and how the review panel might influence the psychology of potential landlords in relation to confidence? Rather a long question, but I needed to set the context. I am tempted to say that, in four weeks time, the people of Scotland will have the opportunity to deliver tax powers to this Parliament and financial independence that will enable us to tackle some of these fundamental issues affecting our land issues in this country and how to incentivise the creation of tenancies in this country. I was tempted and I said it. So these debates are very, very relevant. Ironically, we are spending a lot of time and energy looking at very serious issues in relation to this debate, yet if we had tax powers in this Parliament there are some fundamental changes that we could potentially take that would have a big impact on the availability of little land in Scotland. It is a very important point of the debate. In past years, I have made representations to UK chancellors who have not even replied to my representations about trying to take into account the needs to incentivise land and budgets. These are important issues and hopefully we will have more of a say over them in 2016 onwards if we get a yes vote in September. Other issues that are cross-cutting clearly mentioned— Can I go back to that very briefly? Just in relation to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, which has been looking at this evidence about taxation, I wonder whether you have any comment on or any other members of the panel have any comment on what the UK Government could do in relation to taxation as well. It might be helpful at this stage just to get some balance into the discussion. I am happy—I am not sure if I will give much balance, but I am happy to respond to that because I welcome the fact that the Scottish Affairs Committee is looking at the role taxation and fiscal measures could play in the land reform debate, which in turn relates to this and I am going to come on to that in terms of other cross-cutting issues. However, our experience of successive UK Governments is that there is zero interest in looking at tax and fiscal measures in relation to land that would help to address this debate, and that is an unfortunate reality that the UK Government or the Westminster Parliament have a track record of not touching tax measures that could help to free up land in Scotland for letting. Hopefully that might change one day, and therefore if the Scottish Affairs Committee can give more prominence to the role taxation could play, that is a good thing. However, we can take these powers into our own hands and not have to rely on the Scottish Affairs Committee that has been listened to by unsympathetic Westminster Governments. In terms of other cross-cutting issues, I want to talk about forestry and land reform, because clearly the land reform review group did address some of these issues. As you know, just last week we announced the Forest Commission let, which is going to new entrants in the Inverness area. I think there is a really big debate to be had there about how we use Scottish land and publicly owned land to help encourage let land and new entrants and create new tenancies. The new starter units that have been created by the Forestry Commission are bold and radical, but they show a way in which things can be done in the future. The land reform review group flagged up some measures that could potentially be taken to take that debate forward. That comes from agricultural policy payments and how they are applied all impact in this debate. Those cross-cutting issues are very important. I invite members to raise any that have come to their attention over the past few months, because there are a number of cross-cutting issues. Slightly beyond the remits of this group, but I am quite passionate about forestry being a farmer. A great opportunity was missed when grants were laid out for planting immunity woodlands. If it had been more integrated with agriculture, there is a lot of agriculture land out there that is unmanagable. The people are not there to manage it anymore, and with sympathetic planting, those areas could become manageable once again. I am sitting in a place, a tenant in a place of my own, but it was planted and has made the management a lot easier and a lot more efficient. I think that we need to look at all those issues and integrate them more closely. Again, just backing up what the cabinet secretary said, the new cap should help. We need to look closer at activity and blacklisting as well. All those issues should help that land is utilised properly. Subsidy cannot just be claimed merely because you have a chunk of land that is eligible. One of the motivations for choosing the 2013 trigger dates for land that qualifies for cap payments as opposed to 2015 was the case put by the Scottish Tenant Farms Association and others. We should try not to incentivise taking land back in hand to take advantage of new payments, so that will help to protect, hopefully, some wet land in Scotland. I will not take into account the fact that the committee unanimously said that that was a good idea as well. I was just about to make that point. The most important contribution, of course, was the committee's report, which was sent to me supporting the case put by the various sectors. Can I just respond to your psychology point? History has left us with a set of cultural attitudes, behaviours, dress and all sorts of things in rural Scotland, which in urban Scotland have largely evolved on from there, but are still there, quite prevalent in rural Scotland. I do think that that underpins, in a cross cutting way, some of the challenges that we are addressing here, and at the risk of repeating myself, one of the key outcomes from this review, which is only partially in the gift of government, is a need for really robust leadership on all sides here that moves rural Scotland on from that history. That is good, so I think that we have rounded off that one. Process issues at Angus MacDonald. The committee has heard that stakeholders are generally very supportive of the review groups that work to date with the Scottish land and estates, saying that they are quite optimistic to quote them, that the outcome will be productive and will result in a more vibrant tenanted sector in Scotland. The NFUS also said that the current review process is an opportunity for significant change and a new collaborative approach, so it is all very encouraging comments from that side. However, there has also been a call from RICS or RICS for a moratorium on any legislative change for at least 10 years, signed up by all the major political parties in this Parliament. Given that the certainty has been highlighted as imperative this morning on a few occasions, and given that there seems to be a remarkable degree of consensus on this with regard to maintaining stability, do you see that continuing in the short to long term? How we ensure that stakeholders are kept on board throughout the rest of the process and beyond? Clearly, the committee is now at the task of coming up with the recommendations and proposals. We are not going to be naive enough to sit here and think that every single recommendation that we are making up with will be warmly welcomed by every single stakeholder in Scotland. However, it is fair to say that there is a degree of consensus, and we are all trying to get to the same place here. While I cannot speak for other political parties, one of the Scottish Parliament's attributes is that we are able to reach consensus on a number of important issues. This committee, of course, has a key role to play, so I will pay close attention to the views of this committee, and I expect that you will be, hopefully, following up your evidence sessions with some kind of communication to the Government and the review group in particular over what we have been debating. Our aim will be to keep the spirits of co-operation and constructive dialogue and, hopefully, consensus going right to the end. Thereafter, if we do deliver effective proposals and recommendations, that, in turn, hopefully will attract support and mean that Parliament as a whole will think that the job is done and that we can move on. That is our challenge as a review group, but, clearly, it is in the hands of Parliament to take decisions on those issues. I think that there is hope for that. I look forward to your deliberations and delivery by the end of this year. I thank the cabinet secretary and his supporting members of the review group. We will have a five-minute break before we change over panels. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your evidence. We are ready to start again now. This is agenda item 3. I welcome you back to the third and final item today. This is for the committee to take evidence from the cabinet secretary, Richard Lochhead, on the Scottish Government's designation of marine protected areas following on last week's stakeholder session. I welcome the cabinet secretary once again. Good morning to David Mallon, the head of the marine environment branch, and David Palmer, the acting head of division in marine planning and policy at the Scottish Government. The cabinet secretary wishes to say something to start off with. I thank the committee for the opportunity to discuss our work on marine protected areas in Scottish waters. I read an official report from last week's session with interest, so it is good to continue to take a close interest in the innovative area of policy. Before I outline our work on the MPAs, I would like to echo the convener's initial remarks at the beginning of today and say that I was very sorry to hear about Laurence Mees' very sudden death last week. Laurence was, of course, director of the Scottish Association for Marine Science at Oban and was due to give evidence to your committee. He has been a major figure in the marine science community in Scotland for many years and, of course, he was very enthusiastic about what was being achieved in this country, and he was very closely involved with that. His directorship of SAMS was characterised by energy and enthusiasm, and he helped to solve some of the big marine challenges for people and environment in this country, and, of course, he will be sadly missing. I would like to add my condolences to his loved ones and his colleagues and SAMS and friends. I would now like to make a short opening statement about our work on the MPAs, which form, of course, a major part of our strategy for nature conservation. Scotland sees a world renowned for the biodiversity and its vital that we protect them. Our seas, as I'm sure the committee are aware, are the fourth largest in the whole of the EU and support many habitats and species, including cold water coral reefs and 22 individual species of whales and dolphin. Scotland also has five million seabirds, which is one for every person in this country, and is home to almost half of the European Union's breeding seabirds. Currently, future generations should be able to continue to enjoy the vast array of marine species and habitats that depend on our seas, and only by protecting these seas can industry also continue to benefit from the natural capital and services that they provide to our society. Looking back, the Scottish Parliament took the decision to recognise the importance of marine protected areas by including them as a key element of the Marine Scotland Act. Parliament placed legal duty in ministers to create an NPA network and supported my call for offshore marine conservation to be devolved to Scotland as well. After the Act was passed in 2010, Marine Scotland initiated a project to identify the inshore and offshore NPAs to include in the network. Last month, and that's why we're here today, I designated 30 marine protected areas in Scottish waters. The NPAs were identified to represent our species and habitats, including flame shell beds, feather stars, common skate, and ocean quahog as well, which is a large mollusk that can live for centuries. It will also protect sandales, which many seabirds and marine mammals depend on for food, and black gillamate, the only seabird that is not currently protected under the EU birds directive in special protected areas. The largest NPA is the Northeast Feral Shetland Channel, at approximately 23,000 square kilometres, almost the size of the whole of the Scottish Highlands, and that's the largest NPA in the whole of Europe. So, those NPAs bring the total marine protected area coverage to 20 per cent of Scotland's seas, and that is within the 10 to 30 per cent targets that have been called for by scientists in international conservation agreements. When developing the network, we took account of a wide range of factors, including geographical range and variation, where our species and habitats were threatened or declining, and the need for replication and connectivity. We outlined our proposed approach to the Parliament in autumn 2010 and our progress in our report to Parliament in December 2012. We then consulted on the NPA proposals in 2013, and, of course, as you're aware, we had an unprecedented response to the consultation from a wide range of interests, including many local communities around Scotland. In total, we received just under 15,000 responses, most were in favour of the NPA network, and an independent review supported SNH and GNC scientific advice. We worked hard to outline in the consultation how we expected each NPA to be managed. That work, of course, has to continue, and it will continue in dialogue with our marine industries and other interests to ensure that we get the appropriate management put in place. Last month, I also announced new proposals to protect seabirds, basking sharks and marine mammals, and we now plan our public consultation on those proposals to complete the network, and I look forward to community and progress to Parliament in the near future. Again, I just want to emphasise that, because we are very lucky in Scotland, we got a responsibility for 20 per cent of Europe's waters with so many unique species and habitats that we should all take pride in what is innovative and landmark legislation that has been passed by the Scottish Parliament in recent years and which has now resulted in 30 marine protected areas being deserated in Scottish waters. We will move to the discussion about the selection and designation process first, Dave Thomson. Thank you, convener, and thank you again, gentlemen, this morning. Can I just say first of all that I am very supportive of these designations, and I think that it is something that is very much needed. I am particularly pleased that the industry in general is supportive of what is being done as well, and that is quite an achievement, I think, given its secretary, especially to bring the fishermen on board, although I know not all fishermen are entirely happy. I would like to pick up on a couple of points, and it is to do with sand eels in particular. The First and Fourth Banks complex MPA, where there appears to be competing interests in terms of possible offshore wind developments and the conservation of sand eels. I note that the species has not been included as a feature on that particular site. On a more broad point about sand eels, they have been included in the broader network for conservation rather than for recovery. Do you have any comments to make on the issue of sand eels, which is a very important food species for many other fish and birds, and whether we should be making any sort of representations to Europe about fishing them at all? I know that some European countries do, although we do not intend to do that here. The two points are the Banks, the First and Fourth, and the broader issue of sand eels. I was remiss of me not to say that I have got the two Davids with me, David Mallor and David Palmer, from the Scottish Government. I hope that you are in position since day one, since we started its journey a few years ago, which is a huge relief to me as Minister. We have certainly played a huge role in getting us to where we are today, so I may call colleagues to talk about their experience and deal with stakeholders over some of these issues. In terms of the sand eels issue, three inshore and offshore MPA proposals for sand eels were of course consulted upon and have now been designated. That does recognise, I hope, the importance of protecting those particular species. As you said, because they are food for important seabird species as well. We have also designated several MPAs for sand and gravel habitats, which are of course also critical habitats for species such as sand eels, including the First and Fourth, which you mentioned as well. Clearly, the issue of sand eels has been an on-going issue for many years in the conservation of sand eels, and we used to have the Danish vessels that come in and fish our stocks just off the shoreline in Scotland. For the last few years, European restrictions have been in place over the sand eel fishery, which have been renewed year on year. Some of the conservation protection of sand eel populations at the moment come through the common fisheries policy and wider European legislation, but because we are going through the process of designing the MPAs, we thought that it was important to listen to representations on that. Of course, that has led to designation of areas where there are sand eels. The gist of your question seems to be that there is a need for further action to protect sand eels, because I am not sure that that is the case. I think that we have adequate protection in place now. I am happy to take more scientific advice and maybe colleagues will interject, but sand eel populations are influenced not just by predation but also by climate change. And our waters warming affects where the sand eel populations are able to better read, etc. So, I am not sure if any further protection over and above the MPAs and over and above the existing European protection would make a material difference, to be honest, but I am happy to take more scientific advice on that. I will ask colleagues if we are aware of any need for further protection, I think, as with representations. Yes, really just to say that the MPA proposals that have been designated were designed to add value to existing protection and, as Mr Lockhead has outlined, there already is action taken by the European Union on the advice of ICs to protect other populations of sand eels in the North Sea, and we will continue to keep that IC's advice under review. Several people wanted to come in. Jim, Ym, Graham Day and then Claudia Beamish. Yes, thank you very much, convener. Good morning to you all again. Just regarding the first of fourth banks, the three banks area, the original draft proposal was actually for one large bank to be an MPA area, which encompassed the three smaller ones that we do have now. Last week we heard from the energy sector who were concerned at the fourth banks being there at all, but environmentalists were obviously concerned that it wasn't the original larger fourth bank. How much is this three smaller ones being driven by actual science, or how much has it been driven by trying to keep everybody happy? The decisions have been driven by science. Clearly, the banks on the fourth that are being protected have been driven by science, but in terms of our whole approach to the MPA designations, of course we have had to work with all sectors. In some cases, only a small proportion of any MPA will directly impact on any particular industry. In the case of the fourth banks, for instance, one of the concerns was the impact on renewables, where, as you know, in terms of the plans for offshore renewables, that's a key area that's been designated, and we're working on that just now. Therefore, the renewable energy sector, as you can imagine, is paying close attention to what the designations may be for that area. That's why we had to be driven by the science, so we're not giving favouritism to any one particular industry, but we're having to balance various interests. In terms of where we actually physically designate, we have to ensure that we're protecting the features that need protected and not designated areas that are larger than would otherwise be required by the science, and vice versa, we don't want to ignore these marine features that do have to be protected. So, whilst the area that will be subject to the MPA may well overlap with some renewable energy developments that will have to take into account the designation now, the actual percentage of the MPA area that will be affected will be tiny, because you're talking about a management plan that I have to put in place, and that will be drawn up in the foreseeable future for that area, and the management plan will take into account where the features are within any MPA. So, if you've got any MPA, you should get multi-features. Clearly, there will be different parts of the MPA that require different management options. I'm just trying to say here that MPA designation does not mean to say that everything happens when the MPA will be affected by one decision or another within the management plan, because it will be tailored to the features within the MPA. So, hopefully, we've struck a balance there that will allow the renewable energy developments to proceed. They'll have to go through the various processes, and the management plan will have to be taken into account, but we can have that balance of interests. Thank you, convener, and good morning again, Cabinet Secretary, and good morning to officials as well. We heard from Lloyd Austin of RSPB last week and from Professor Bob Furness that the further forth, as we've been discussing already this morning, is a very important place for sandeals and seabirds. In fact, Professor Furness's work has produced many scientific papers on the subject. Could I seek clarification from you, Cabinet Secretary, as to why the sandeals haven't been noted as a specific feature in this MPA, and there are concerns that have been expressed about the fact that there isn't replication elsewhere in terms of protection. You have made the point about the climate change, as well as the fisheries, and I acknowledge that there's a fisheries closure there, but there are still concerns being voiced that have been expressed to me in the interim between the meetings as well. I wonder if we could sort of look into this a bit further. I'm happy to arrange for a follow-up scientific note on sandeals to the committee, because it clearly has a lot of interest in sandeal populations. In terms of the designations, all I can say is that the starting point is that there is existing protection for sandeals, as I mentioned before, through European legislation, and we designate on the basis of sandeals in terms of the habitats that are conducive for the sandeals. I'm not quite sure what your question is about in terms of a specific designation of sandeals within that feature. As I understand it, as a layperson on sandeals, I understand that they haven't been specifically designated within that MPA as a feature, which is in need of protection and enhancement. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. I'll check that out. I'm not sure if David Mallan was specific here in terms of how we got to that position. It's correct that sandeals are not a protected feature of the first and fourth MPA. That is because, as Mr Lockhead said, there already is protection in that area of the North Sea for sandeals. Indeed, we had long discussions with scientists in Marine Scotland on what was the best mix of features to protect in the first and fourth. Given the measures that are already in place under the common fisheries policy and our wish to add value through these destinations, it was considered not necessary to add sandeals to the mix of features that are protected in that site. Just to expand on one of the points that you made in your question, there is in fact replication of sandeals within the network. We already have multiple sites for that feature, but MPA networks by virtue of the legislation passed by Parliament are about an adaptive approach with regular review. Again, that is something that we wish to keep under review. The SBA proposals that we have identified may contribute to the broader protection of sandeals, given that seabirds, among other species, depend on sandeals. Through the convener, could I just come back briefly on that point? You mentioned, David, the common fisheries policy. I acknowledge that there is fisheries closures within the context of the MPA that we are discussing and protection for sandeals. In view of what the Cabinet Secretary is saying about climate change, is that EU designation? Does the science show that the sandeals do not have to be recognised as a specific protected feature within this MPA to ensure their future protection at this stage? If the science isn't clear enough, and I'm asking you if you can clarify if you think it is, is it something that could be reviewed between now and 2016, when that's the date when the first review would happen? I was just going to add that, as I said before, we'll make sure we get a scientific note laying out of the scientific case, but clearly the thrust of the MPA designation was the habitats that are important to sandeals, but because of other factors affecting the sandeals. For the reasons that David Malin gave there, the scientists advised that we should stick to the habitats. The fisheries legislation comes from a purely conservation of fish stocks perspective, not other factors. Because of the issues surrounding sandeal stocks in the 4th and the 4th, that protection has been in place for some time through the common fisheries policy from purely a stock conservation point of view. I'm happy to make sure that we get a scientific note just explaining the basis of the scientific advice that we received. That's much appreciated, thank you. Thank you, convener, and good morning, cabinet secretary. Looking to start with a bit how marine protected areas are managed and enforced, given that there's just over two years to implement the MPA network, what's your priorities going to be in terms of the assessment, development and implementation of management measures, and how are you going to ensure that MPAs are more than just lines on the map? As you say, we have until the end of 2016 to put the management plans in place for the 30 MPAs, and the work has already begun on that. There is a management handbook already available to give guidance as to the kind of options that are available for each MPA. We are very hopeful that a culture of compliance has been generated in Scotland. I think we all recognise that having 30 MPAs representing 20 per cent of Scotland's waters does give a challenge in terms of traditional policing and enforcement. Clearly, that's quite a challenge in itself given the nature of Scotland's waters. However, our experience from speaking to all the stakeholders and industries concerned is that we're all wanting to protect Scotland's precious marine features. That's why we've had a good process in Scotland because people are behind what we're trying to do. Already, in terms of the fishing industry, we have a number of voluntary measures that have been in place the last few months, where prior to the management plan we put in place, the fishing industry has agreed to put some voluntary measures in place. That's a hopeful sign that's something that I'm sure we all want to welcome as a fact that the fishermen recognise that there is a change of activity that can take place in certain MPAs on a voluntary basis whilst we await the official management plan to be put in place before the end of 2016. There will be enforcement measures. Clearly, we have Marine Scotland's compliance and they have responsibility not just for fishers protection but for the MPAs. That will play a role in terms of our ships and our aircraft and the other resources we have. However, it's not going to be achievable without the culture of compliance amongst all the users of Scotland Seas. However, the main protection against this just simply being lines on the map is, of course, its designations. Therefore, all the licensing authorities for anything that happens in their waters in the future have to take into account the designations. That's the copper bottom guarantee that things are different from now on in that they're designated. Therefore, there's a legal requirement for these designations to be taken into account for future developments. That will, hopefully, work well. Over and above that, we'll have the actual management plans themselves, which will lead to protective measures being put in place in each case. Angus MacDonald had a related question to Lincoln with us just now. Thank you, convener. I'm just picking up on the voluntary management measures that the cabinet secretary mentioned. As we've heard in evidence, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, the Scottish Crewe Fishermen's Federation and the Western Erl's Fishermen's Association, in conjunction with Marine Scotland, have implemented voluntary measures for three MPAs at South Arran, Wester Ross and Upper Lockfine. Of course, those voluntary measures are due to be replaced by statutory measures in due course. However, although there seems to be a good sense by the majority prevailing, does the cabinet secretary fail that fishermen who are members of other associations or other unaffiliated bodies are likely to stick to those measures? If so, how will they be monitored and policed? Clearly, we've done all we can to work with all the relevant interests that use Scotland's waters. In terms of the fishing industry, we've gone to great lengths over the last few years to involve the fishing industry. We've very much relied on their expertise to understand the impact in fishing patterns. Without the input of the fishermen, we've been unable to deal with this properly because we get the intelligence from the fishermen off where their fishing patterns cross over with designated MPAs or, at that point in time, proposed MPAs. I welcome that co-operation. I can only say that we are so much further forward than we've ever been before. The fact that we do this voluntary arrangement in place, which is relevant to living in separate locations across three of the newly designated MPAs, is a very positive sign. I hope and I trust that all the fishermen, irrespective of which organisation they are a member of, will pay heed to those voluntary measures. There are other examples of voluntary measures in relation to fishing elsewhere in Scotland where all sectors have heeded them. They are not in relation to MPAs or other issues such as inshore fisheries. The point here is that there is no reason to think that fishermen will not heed to those voluntary measures irrespective of which fishing organisation actually get round the table to agree them. The backstop is the management plan that we put in place in due course. There will be enforcement resources there to hopefully make sure that they are heeded. Hopefully, because everyone is behind the thrust of what we are trying to do here, the culture of compliance will be there in work. Thank you. Clearly, we all hope that every single fisherman will adhere to the voluntary measures. Now, Scottish Environment Link has highlighted to the committee in some evidence just this week that two MPAs, the Small Isles in Wester Ross, illustrate the stark differences between the features, the aim protection and the current management approach, need close examination. For example, Link members have received feedback from within their own membership expressing concern that the new MPAs are simply paper parks, given that some damaging activities have been allowed to continue in newly designated MPAs. There has already been disappointment among coastal community groups that Scallop dredging, for example, will continue within areas of sites that are now designated for protection. Clearly, that is an issue, and I am keen to hear what your views are on that. Sure. Let us return to the question of science. If there is scientific evidence that there is damage being caused, the management plans will take that into account and respond to it, because we do not want damaging activity that will harm our marine features. We have to the scientific evidence, and I am not saying any one particular organisation is doing this, I am just saying that clearly there are many perceptions that are always communicated to me by communities, by other fishermen, by organisations that there are certain damaging activities taking place in different parts of Scotland. The first thing we also have to do is gather the scientific evidence that that actually is the case, because it is not the case that fishing activity per se causes damage, that is not the case. In many of the MPAs, various types of fishing activity can continue without disruption, because they do not cause damage, but in other cases, where there is evidence that damage has been caused, clearly the management plan will have to take that into account to stop that damage being caused. There is no broad brush approach here, or one size fits all, way of approaching fishing in the MPAs. In each case, we will look at its merits, and in some cases, certain fishing activities will continue without disruption, but some might have to move elsewhere to avoid damage being caused. If there are examples out there of genuine damage being caused at the moment, I would want to hear about those. Clearly, as we put the management plans together, I would want to make sure that we prioritise the management plans for those particular areas. So I would urge any organisation or MSP or this committee to give me those examples, and we will make sure that the management plans for those areas are absolutely prioritised. I have an issue with the existing fisheries closure areas. I do not know if you want me to raise that just now. The seven existing fisheries closure areas are considered to be contributing to the network, but they are not designated as MPAs for nature conservation under Scottish or European legislation. Are those areas and the features in them subject to equivalent safeguards and requirements for monitoring, reporting and review, as if they were designated MPAs? Because there is some concern that, as they are not designated as conservation sites under the definition of the Marine Scotland Act, they will not be managed, monitored, reported and reviewed in the same way as if they were fully fledged MPAs. I can just clarify this area that is already subject to restrictions. We have various levels of protection already in place for Scottish waters, usually as you know emanating from Europe via the habitats directives or via the common fishers policy or special protected areas, destinations or whatever. They will all form part of the network of MPAs in Scotland. The areas we are designating are often areas of multi features, which introduce a new form of designation because they were not otherwise been designated, but existing special protected areas, et cetera, will form part of the overall network of areas in Scotland, which will comprise the designations that are in place already through Europe or the MPAs. We are designating 30 MPAs and that together will lead to a big network around Scottish waters of protection. Those areas where there is already the restrictions, no one should have any fear that there is going to be some sort of lighter touch approach to those areas because they will be subject to protection at the moment. Earlier on we discussed existing protection for sandale populations in the fourth and that is legislation that is in place. It is passed by Parliament to close the fisheries for sandales in those particular areas, so that is not light touch. That is legislation passed by this Parliament that closes those areas via the common fishers policy. MPAs, of course, are more likely to address multi features and a much wider variety of features than what European legislation does, which are very specific usually to one species or in the case of fisheries protection in relation to one stock. On management principles, Jim Hew? Quite neatly from that, part of the key policies of the handbook state that it is to use the best available scientific information. You have mentioned that scientific information has been used for the fourth banks, has been used for decisions on where people would dredge scullops or not, but, of course, best available scientific information might not necessarily be good science. We heard that from some of our witnesses last week, and we also heard from one of the energy representatives last week that quite often the evidence that they have is evidence that is actually done by energy sector when they are doing their environmental assessments themselves, which are passed on to government, and some of them are, of course, commercially sensitive and therefore cannot be broadened out. What are your thoughts on the difference between the best available scientific information and actual good science? Is this robust enough to ensure that we are meeting good environmental standards? As a society, we have more knowledge than ever before of what lies beneath the waves in Scottish waters. That has been huge progress over the past few years alone, given the actual work that is taking place as a result of the Marine Scotland Act, but clearly over the last few decades given Scotland a lot of expertise in marine science. We mentioned SAMS early on and the good work that has been happening there. Marine Scotland science plays a crucial role in that. We take our advice on the GNCC, SNH, SEPA, Marine Scotland science, and, as I said before, the other organisations in Scotland have all been working together to build up Scotland's scientific knowledge of other marine features. It is not complete, of course it is not, and the storm sure is a long way to go. We know that we have four search locations that we are going to be bringing forward for consultation in terms of future NPAs, et cetera, for mobile species, so we are still building up our scientific knowledge in some areas, but we are confident that we have enough scientific knowledge and good enough scientific knowledge to designate the 30 NPAs that we have mentioned today. There is also the debate around science now, accurate it is, but you have to take the precautionary approach and use what scientific knowledge you do have and base your decisions on that, because the alternative is not taking any decisions and not making any designations, so we are confident that we have enough scientific knowledge. Ironically, of course, you mentioned the renewable energy sector and the knowledge base built up by offshore renewables has been fantastic as well, so that has gone into the mix and helped us greatly understand things. Scotland has made huge leaps in terms of marine scientific knowledge in the last few years, and I am confident that we have a good basis in which to take decisions. Thanks very much for that, but just to follow on that, it is obviously not just the big energy companies that are perhaps finding out the science, but also we had evidence that amateur naturalists, if you like, were actually found out about the mere old beds to give an example off of Arran. Therefore, I just wonder how quickly organisations like yourself, the Government, can react to new information that comes in from either the big energy companies or from amateur naturalists who find out new information, because for sure we are more knowledgeable than we were yesterday, but there is a lot of sea out there, as we all know. We do take into account information that we get from local communities and one of the reasons why we are keen to have as part of the MPA designation process community-driven MPAs is because we want to hear the views of communities. Clearly, when we hear from communities about marine features that they want to protect and propose for MPAs, of course we have to have official scientific investigation to make sure that what we are hearing is accurate, but in terms of bringing those special areas of marine features to our attention, we built that into the process and a number of the MPAs that came forward and were finally designated originated from third parties, so not from Governments and not from our own scientific institutions, but perhaps from environmental organisations or in the case of Arran local communities. The process is very open to allow proposals to come from outside of Government and outside of the official channels. Clearly, we have to check science and make sure that it is underpinned by verified science, but that has worked. You talked more about what has been where we are now. I was thinking of the future discoveries of our sea beds. How quickly can the Government react to new discoveries of natural information regarding the sea beds? Clearly, in terms of the reporting mechanism to Parliament, we have to have the management options in place, or management plans in place by the end of 2016, and in 2018 is the next deadline for reporting back to Parliament on progress with the MPAs. Behind that lies a lot of work, so we have all our scientists in Scotland working together and they have open channels and liaison with communities and environmental organisations, so there is ample opportunity for people to feed in scientific discoveries or knowledge to that process. It is a very open process and, as I said before, the evidence that is working is that some of our MPAs that have been designated have originated from third parties. Dave Thomson wanted a supplementary on that. Thank you very much, convener. It is as much a comet as a supplementary, I suppose. I agree, obviously, with what Jim Hume is saying. If metal beds or whatever are discovered, then we need to make sure that they are protected. However, the very fact that they have been discovered actually shows that they have not been destroyed, so they are there and have been, I do not know how long it takes to un-establish such a bed, but if they are there just now with all the commercial activity that is going on just now, then the conservation is already happening in the sense that our fishermen and others have not destroyed those things, so if they are there, that is actually a very positive thing in relation to the fact that we have these beds. I think that we need to be careful and we need to accept and realise that the folk who are fishing or seas have just as much interest in making sure that the environment is good in relation to how they make their living. I am not saying that they are all perfect or whatever, but we should not just go rushing in to designate something every time we find something unless it is very, very particularly precious. Remember that it is there despite the commercial activity that has been going on for centuries. That is a very good point and it links into the previous question from Jim Hume about how we take into account local knowledge and local input to science, because often the users of our seas are the people with the local knowledge and know which areas to avoid so they do not cause damage, but notwithstanding that of course there are areas that have been damaged and we are aware of that and therefore that is why there is a justification for this whole new approach to marine conservation. Of course, we will never know what was there previously that is not there now, so we can only work with the information that we have, but you are quite right. The fact that we have so many special marine features beneath our waves in Scottish waters shows that it is possible for marine activity and industries to work side-by-side with marine conservation. Mike Ferguson had another supplementary on this. Yeah, thank you. It is about the robustness of the scientific evidence that has been used in drawing up the plans. Angus MacDonald mentioned quite rightly that link members have apparently received fairly damning feedback that some of them view the new NPAs as paper parks, as he quoted, and that is quite robust opposition. I wonder whether some of that disquiet, if you like, is brought about by situations where perhaps the scientific evidence that is available has not maybe been used to the fullest in drawing up the management zones, and I would refer you to Scottish Natural Heritage's commission report 764 on the Upper Loch Fyne and Loch Goyal NPAs and Wester Ross NPA, which shows a fairly typical example of what I am trying to get at, which is, again, an identified moll bed, but which lies out with the area that is targeted for management. That obviously gives rise to a concern that the scientific evidence is there that it exists, but it has not been taken into account when drawing up the area for management. I just wondered whether you could comment on that. Yes, I will come back to that in a second. I just want to address your comment about paper parks, NPAs being paper parks. I just want to recap on the process of how we got to where we are today. The big feature of public policy now in relation to marine conservation is designations. The most important aspect to bear in mind is that we are designating. Then it is followed by management, but designation in itself is acknowledgement that they are very important features. That is the backdrop to all of what we are talking about, is designation. Society has investigated, discovered and designated that is a special particular feature that we want to protect. In some cases, there will be no activity in those NPAs, so the management plan, I do not know what it will look like, but it will not be as detailed as the management plan where there is lots of activity. Quite clearly, a paper NPA people might think that is designated, but nothing is going to change. If mere fact is designated, it protects it from future activities, which would have to be licensed and pay attention to facts designated. Designation in itself is a very important point to bear in mind here. Many of the NPAs will not have much activity at all, many are far out at sea with very little activity, not even any fishing activity. The Spanish comment, but there is not going to be a lot of evidence of change activity because there is no activity in the first place. In terms of where there is activity, the management plans that are going to be put together will be based on scientific advice. Clearly, someone looking at an NPA or an area of sea that has been designated an NPA and sees some activity will think, hold on a minute, that is an NPA, but I can still see that activity. Clearly, the challenge is to make sure that scientific evidence that activity that has been witnessed is damaging the marine environment. Pelagic fisheries, for instance, do not damage marine features. You may say that a fishing vessel that is fishing for pelagic stocks, which swim near the surface of the water, and the assumption from the bystand might be that there is lots of activity happening in that NPA, but of course there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that activity is damaging the marine features. Everything will be backed up with science. In terms of the question about some features being identified that are not NPAs, I will ask David Mallon to come in because he is closely involved in the process, but clearly the original approach to this was if you had several features that were replicated in various sites, we had to make sure that features were protected by at least protecting one of those sites, so that the feature is protected as an example of what is in our waters. If there were various locations all over the place with the same feature, it was built into the original process that the absolute bottom line was some of those areas had to be protected, not necessarily all of them, but some of them. I do understand that. I merely mentioned it as an example of perhaps why some people have less faith in the scientific processes that have been used than you suggest they have been. It is not me that is calling them paper parks, it is others. I merely used that as an example of why perhaps people are questioning the use of the science that is available in drawing up the management. Okay, and maybe that is just an issue of getting the information out of the information process. Right back at the beginning of this journey, of course, we recognised that our waters are used for all kinds of activities and a lot of economic activity, so we had to have that balance. There are some people who would no economic activity in their waters because it could potentially cause pollution or damage. Society does not take that view. Society takes the views that we need economic activity, but we have to protect our marine environment and strike that balance, and that is why we are much further forward than we were there before. Okay, I am happy with that, thank you. Thank you. Claudia Beamish. Could I develop these arguments that we have been having in relation to management of MPAs a bit further, cabinet secretary? Last week, I think it was, we heard from Lloyd Austin of the RSPB that MPAs are designed—sorry, the MPAs designated are not yet ecologically coherent, meaning efforts must be redoubled to ensure that this network delivers for the environment, industry and communities. I wonder the degree to which it really is an ecologically coherent network. We heard in evidence last week as well that it was necessary to have management objectives for whole sites, and we have touched on that, but I am puzzled as to how, if a whole site is not designated, how enforcement will be taken as to protecting the features that are there that need protection. Clearly, we are going to do our best to get this right, and in 2018 we report back to Parliament on what progress has been made. Lessons will be learned, of course they will be, this is the first time we have ever done this, and hopefully at some point in 20 or 30 years people will look back and think we have a great system in place that was developed over time, but this is the first time we are doing this, so we will learn lessons. MPAs can be relatively large areas of sea, and within that large area of sea there will be multi features, different features. They will be mapped out and the coordinates will be available, and that is how I guess it will be enforced by the police, but that is why the management plan will have to address the various features within those MPAs, and that is why you are not just going to have necessarily the same management plan or the same measures within the management plan applying to all parts of the MPA. I think to put things in perspective, if you look at the fishing area of the fladons where that is a huge area of the North Sea, but the actual part of it that will actually be subjected to measures will be something like 1 per cent or something. We must not get carried away with huge areas of sea being subjected to really big restrictions. The management plans will take into account the actual activities in which features are being protected within each MPA. Is the clear possibility that—you are reassuring me, I take it, I am not trying to put words in your mouth—that the features and the habitats that they thrive in within the marine protected area, even if the whole area is not managed, because it is a very large area or for other reasons, that that will be still enforceable? Yes. Clearly, as I said before, we are on a learning curve here. Until the management plans are put in place and we reflect on how successful they are, we cannot fully answer those kinds of questions. However, the key is that we are doing it for the first time, and I am absolutely confident that the outcome will be greater protection. Could you also explain how the ecologically coherent network will be developed in relation not just to stopping further degradation of our marine environment but to enhancing recovery, which are not words that, in my view, we hear enough of in relation to the marine environment? That is one of the trickiest debates, which is defining recovery, because we will have to recognise that we want clearly some marine features to recover, but then that basic question will recover to what and some MPAs we are hoping and expecting to recover naturally. That is quite challenging to lay down rules and regulations within the management plans in relation to recovery, because we would have to define recovery, as I said before, and recover to what. Clearly, we will be guided by the science, and that will be an on-going exercise. Recovery is an objective, but in terms of how you lay down within the management plans and define recovery of any particular site, it is a bit more challenging. On enhancement, which I believe is part of the commitments within the Marine Act, enhancement of our marine environment? Again, all I can say is that the management plans are going to be guided by the science. The management plans are going to be substantial documents that apply to each MP in Scotland, so we will have 30 management plans and they will be guided by the science. I like Ferguson. We heard some evidence, and indeed we have written evidence that suggests that if this network is to be ecologically coherent, further MPAs or further designations will need to be added. Do you agree with that? Does the 2018, when this comes back to Parliament in 2018, will that allow an opportunity for further designations and areas to be added if it is believed to be necessary in order to deliver what Parliament asked for under the Marine Scotland Act, or do you think that this network as proposed is it? No, this is certainly not it. There is no doubt that we will be continuing to learn more about Scotland's seas and our marine features, and the more we build up that scientific knowledge, the more MPAs will be designated, no doubt, in due course. Who knows where there will be, how many there will be. I have already given an indication that we are looking at mobile species at the moment in terms of some of the search locations that are being looked at, which will lead no doubt to future designations of the mobile species. There are very likely, of course, to be more MPAs, and Parliament will have a duty to keep reflecting and reporting. As I said, the next deadline for that is 2018. Thinking about the resources that are available to extend our knowledge and, indeed, to also regulate those things, are there adequate resources in place to underpin the role of the regulators and the scientists? Given the huge progress that we have made with the science in the run-up to the designations and, indeed, the resources that we have put in to make sure that we can get the management plans in place, so far there has been adequate resources. It is always a challenge, given the wider financial considerations, so that is something that we will have to keep under review, convener, in terms of moving forward to make sure that we have the resources available. It is a huge challenge even getting the 30 management plans in place by the end of 2016. We will keep the resources under review. We have given extra funds towards the various surveys to get the designations in place. Future budget decisions will take into account the need to keep up momentum. I am particularly interested in those decisions because we have maintained scientific research in the budgets to a degree that is laudable in the Scottish budget. That is really important. The work of the Environmental Research Institute in Thurso, which is looking at all aspects of life in the Pentland Firth in particular, all require a kind of guarantee that there will be a flow of cash to those. Is that something that you see as an expanding role for the science and research that we can afford, or have we even adequately looked at the costs that are required to extend that knowledge at the moment? Some of those decisions are very long term. I am content that there are adequate resources made available at the moment for what is required in the short term. As you indicated, we have done our best to protect the science budgets in the Scottish Government despite some of the big cuts that we have had to take. There have been efficiency savings and the budgets have not increased for Marine Scotland. Within Marine Scotland, there has been a reallocation of resources, but in terms of lower Marine Scotland's budget, I am not going to sit here and say that we have increased it because we have had quite a hard efficiency savings, but in terms of overall budget cuts compared to what has happened elsewhere in the UK, we have managed to protect the budgets as far as we can. One great boost to scientific knowledge in Scotland, of course, is from the private sector. We have to remember the oil and gas sector, commissions a lot of environmental work and science, and, of course, the offshore renewable sector. Of course, we have to go through environmental assessments for any of their projects and plans. They have invested a lot in science, so a lot of our scientific institutions in Scotland are benefiting from private sector investments. The resources include those for the regulators. Now that Marine Scotland has got responsibility both for fishing and for marine protection as well, are the ships and aircraft that you have adequate to the task? One of the changing roles of Marine Scotland over the past few years, indeed, with the advent of Marine Scotland itself, we used to have the Scottish Fishes Protection is that our vessels now have a wider remit, not just fish's protection but marine responsibility as well in terms of these designations, etc. We have to keep that under review. We have three ships, two aircraft, staff, various other vessels, clearly ribs and smaller vessels that are attached to the ships that are used for more inshore activity. We have to keep that under review. It emphasises that we are very reliant on the culture of compliance that we spoke about before. If we do not have everyone on board to make this work, it will be challenging. We have to work with people to make sure that we are all going in the same direction and that all the users of Scotland Seas want to protect their marine features. We cannot rely simply on hard enforcement all the time. That is not going to be the best way of delivering our objectives. However, we will keep that under review. I am grateful to Calum Duncan of the Marine Conservation Society last week that spoke about citizen science. There are a lot of very capable people around who observe all sorts of things and report them accordingly. Does the Government have any particular perspective on how that can be encouraged? I am always open to suggestions of how that can be encouraged and perhaps it is something that we should give a lot more thought to. All I would say is that we have gone to great pains, as indicated before, to ensure that our work to date has been very open and transparent and invited contributions from outside of the official channels and it from outside of government. So, while science has to be validated, we have to have an authoritative validation of science in terms of influencing that agenda and inputting to it, we are very keen on supporting what is referred to as citizen science in terms of highlighting issues and inputting to the process. I add that the process north of the border has been highly commended compared to the rest of the UK in terms of approaching our designations and the Marine Scotland act and everything around that. We have been very inclusive, and I am not saying everything is perfect, but we have had a lot of feedback and comment publicly about the process. I think that your committee had that in the last week or two. It is a very inclusive process that we have had in Scotland. Just how inclusive I think that Criam Day wants to explore just a moment before we go. My question is really on the practicalities that can arise with implementing MPAs. Mick Borwell of Oil and Gas UK raised a concern with the committee over one particular management measure at a site level, which was namely that deposited material should meet local habitat type. He read that as meaning that on a mud or a sand seabed devoid of rocks, no rocks could be placed there. His point was that the industry uses rocks to stabilise pipelines, both to protect the content and as a safety measure for the fishing fleet. Is the concern potentially warranted or is there scope for common sense solutions to be found in such specific circumstances? On the one hand, the designations are there to protect, so if the scientific evidence is that using one particular material in one particular location would endanger a marine feature that we want to protect, then clearly that is not going to be accepted and the licence will not be granted for the particular pipeline and analogy you give. But the system is also designed to ensure that this is not about stopping development at sea, it's just ensuring they're appropriate and they're in the right locations and that there's a management plan put in place for any development that does take place to take into account the marine features. So it's not about stopping things, it's just ensuring they don't damage the marine environment. That may mean moving it or it may mean doing it in a different way or whatever, but that's why once the designations in place and the management plans are put in place, clearly anyone wanting to lay a pipeline on Scotland's seabed will have to apply for a licence and the authority that grants that licence has to refer to the designations. So in reality they would have to find a different means of securing any pipeline if permission was to be granted. If that feature's protected, yes. Thanks for the clarity on that. Thank you. Nigel Don, about further designations, any other points on that? It's an issue which we picked up on last week. I understand that there are further four marine protected areas that have been, as it were, thought about already assessed, but were not designated. This is of particular interest to those who are concerned about dolphins, for example, which seem to be particularly covered by these areas. I'm not sure, and I don't think anybody else is particularly sure, what the process is, whether they're being consulted on, when they will be designated, timetable certainty. That's broadly the question, Government Secretary, can you enlighten us please? So clearly we are very lucky in Scottish waters, we have some special species of whales, dolphins, basking sharks, etc. They are spectacular species and we want to do what we can to protect those species from their in Scottish waters, but by the very nature they're mobile species, therefore in terms of designating MPAs to protect those species it's a lot more challenging than static features. That's why it's taking longer. Our hope is to consult on those four MPAs in 2015, but clearly, as I said before, the scientific justification for any particular MP is taking a bit longer because they're mobile species. We have to understand where the breeding grounds are, etc. Once we are confident that we've got that information and it forms the basis of designating MPAs for mobile species, then we'll consult. As I said before, we've announced, as you said, four potential MPAs and 2015 is the target date for consulting. I understand the point about the science and clearly if creatures move around it's a tad difficult to work out where they prefer to be most of the time. I'm sure the scientific community would accept that. Is there any other constraint than good science on simply getting those designated as soon as possible? It's August 2014 at the moment and I'm saying we'll consult on 2015. I think that most people have spoken to understand the reasons why it's taking a bit longer to get those MPAs in place. The consultation will be 2015 and thereafter we will get the destinations in place as soon as possible. Thank you very much for that. Claudia Beamish, a little further on the process. Cabinet Secretary, the Scottish planning policy in paragraph 210, I understand states, authorities should afford the same level of protection to proposed SACs and SBAs, i.e. sites have been approved by Scottish ministers for formal consultation, but have not yet been designated as they do to sites that have been designated. I wonder if you could comment on whether those draft SBAs should be in fact be considered as proposed SBAs and treated as if they've been designated for the planning process. Right, that's quite a complicated question. It's really whether because they have been proposed they can receive protection while the process is going on of consultation until a possible designation. Well, at the moment in terms of our SBAs, as you know, there's 14 locations that are being proposed and again we're going to consult on those in 2015. Is your question that we should somehow put measures in place before the official designation? Yeah, well, Mike, it's a question because I understand in Scottish planning policy, I quoted the paragraph for you, which highlights this issue that once something has been proposed that at the time of formal consultation but have not been designated, they could have protection. I'll reflect on that because the process is already under way for the specific SBAs we're speaking about, as I said before, there's 14 of them, and I will have to check with the authorities to understand if there's protection in place at the moment, albeit not in a statutory footing. But the process has been followed for those 14 SBAs are no different to the existing SBAs already in place in Scottish waters, so there's no difference in terms of the way they've been treated, but I'll certainly check that point you're back to the committee. That would be helpful, and just on the point of the seabird protection, would you be able to—it's an even more difficult question, and I certainly don't know the answer to it, but would you be able to comment on whether you would see the network and protection for seabirds as moving towards completion once whichever areas are designated, have been designated on the best available science at the moment? You're obviously in the future, it may be different, but would you see it as quite robust after this? Yes, I mean it's always dangerous for me to say that something's completed, however, clearly the 14 areas we've proposed have been warmly welcomed, and we're quite confident that that will take us much further forward and address those areas where concerns have been expressed, where there's a lack of protection. Again, as you said yourself, we'll be guided by scientific knowledge, so if more science becomes available in the future, we'll have to respond to that in due course. I don't know if you want to comment the process. Yes, the fact of the matter, I think, the experience from SBAs on land is that there is a need to keep under review whether the sites are sufficient to meet the needs of the populations of the bird species, and I think that's likely to be the case in the marine environment as well. These are the sites, the site proposals, which SNH and JNCC have been able to identify. We'll have to keep that under review, as Mr Lockhead says, and the 2018 review is the first opportunity to do that, similar to the other features that are contained in the network. There are some features that SNH and JNCC had originally sought out to represent which data evidence wasn't available for, and those will be ones that will be actively keeping under review as well. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. It's obvious that we're on a kind of escalator. We learn more as we go along. We're at a particular point now where we've made the first major pioneering move that's been warmly welcomed by many people, and we're in a position that we hope that the learning process will allow people to take on board the science that's been gleaned and to apply science to make sure that these MPAs work. From local communities' point of view, the increase in their involvement in this process will be very important, along with the ensure fishery groups and so on, so we hope that you're able to make all of these things work together and fit the jigsaw together so that we have clean seas and improving environments. Thank you very much to you and your officials for your evidence today. Before closing, I'd like to say that this is the last committee meeting before the independence referendum. Although we've only been back for a short while, the committee has covered some important work on both MPAs and on regard to tenant farming. I'd like to thank all those who have given evidence and worked with us both in front of and behind the scenes. I'll close the meeting now and thank you for your attendance.