 Good morning, and welcome to the 12th meeting of 2016 of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. I should note that Maurice Golden will be leaving at 11.50 today. Before we move to the first item on the agenda, can I remind everyone present to ensure that their mobile phones are on silent for the duration of the meeting? Agenda item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. That covers items 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. So we move to agenda item 2, which is to take evidence on SNH's report on deer management in Scotland, which was published on Friday. We're joined today by representatives of Scottish Natural Heritage, so I welcome Ian Ross, Eileen Stewart and Claudia Rouse. We'll move to questions now. Mr Ross, the report, whatever else it says, does appear by implication to be quite critical of SNH's oversight of deer management over a period of years? Would you accept that? Not directly, no. I mean, I certainly believe that we're part of the solution and there's certainly things, additional things that we could be involved with, but no, I think that we reflected the policy dimension that exists particularly over the last two to three years, and that's about supporting the voluntary approach, working extremely closely with deer management groups, particularly through the Association of Deer Management Groups. I think that if there was any area where I think probably there's a, collectively there's more that we need to do and that's the areas that fall out with any form of collaborative arrangement at the moment, and that certainly is a strong message that comes out on the report. You know, the deer management groups cover I think 39 per cent of Scotland, but in terms of large areas of Lowland Scotland and actually significant parts of Upland Scotland, we don't have a collaborative approach in place and I think there's a challenge there that we do need to address. But in the report it says that the current approach is to deer management under the existing statutory framework or showing signs of improvement, but we cannot confidently conclude that a step change has taken place. SNH is complicit in that, isn't it? I'll ask one of my colleagues to perhaps go in a little bit more detail on that particular point, if you're content, Chairman. Claudia, do you want to come in on that point? Yes, thank you very much. Are you referring particularly in terms of our role in delivering the section 7 agreements? In a wider sense, SNH has oversight of deer management in Scotland. I mean that you have responsibility for that. The question is that, what is quite a critical report, would you not accept that it reflects poorly on SNH, as well as whoever else? I think that the Chairman has given you an initial answer to that. What I wanted to come in with was a bit more detail on the section 7 agreements and how we've taken those forward. One of the things that's been challenging about the report is the variability across the sector in many ways and there might be an opportunity to go into that in more detail later. In terms of section 7s as well, there are complex agreements with a number of different landowners over big upland habitats with different requirements, which makes it challenging. Having said that, there's also a mixed picture that we're getting. Section 7s across all of the agreements have seen deer numbers reduce. In terms of exemplifying the voluntary approach, they show that on difficult questions where people don't necessarily want to do what they're being asked to do, they have engaged and collaborated to deliver some of the aspects that we've asked them. In six out of the 11 agreements, the deer density targets have been met, although in five we acknowledge that they haven't. The habitat targets, which are the other significant requirement, three out of the 11, again have met the targets. Two have partially, and that partly comes back to underneath the complexity of the information that's being monitored. Six have not met the habitat targets and we refer to not yet met because it's very important in terms of the habitats, the time that it takes for them to respond and what the issues are there, but I hope that that bit of extra detail says that they're not wholeheartedly failing at all. No, they're not, but they're not exactly succeeding either. I mean, I'm well aware of those stats that are contained in the report, and it's a question of whether you think deer density targets being met by a little over 50 per cent and a little over a third represents success or failure. Chairman, it's apparent that we have made it clear that additional work is required, and we're not in any way suggesting that the situation is satisfactory. The original commission that we had talked about a step change and played a particular emphasis in terms of the natural heritage and the environmental impact. I think that it's very clear what is, I hope, seen as a comprehensive report, and I also believe that a report which is objective and evidence led. I hope that it's measured in terms of what it says. It highlights that there are additional areas that need to be addressed. It does also acknowledge a great deal of good work, and in particular we acknowledge that a number of deer management groups have certainly progressed significantly in terms of the reassessment and also the very important support that is being made available through the ADMG. The only additional point that I would pick up in is that, clearly, we have not as yet applied section 8, and I think that that's an important point to highlight. I think that, on one occasion, we were taking that process forward. In fact, a paper was taken to our board to consider a range of options, but it was decided based on the evidence and based on what could be considered to be a reasonable approach, that there was still some work to be done in terms of—there had been a change in terms of all the landowners had indicated a willingness to collaborate. We felt that we should give them the opportunity to deliver on that basis, but in that particular case, the board also made it clear that they wanted to carry out a very early review. In fact, only last week we got an update on progress on that, and we will probably be returning to it in March of next year, and at that stage we will make a determination whether there is a need to take further work, of which section 8 would be one of those options. I would also make the point that, in terms of both section 7 and section 8, there is a process that you need to go through in terms of the presence of plans and also consultation, and there are also, as you would understand, significant resource demands that go with that, but we have done that in this case. We have teared up a few areas for questioning, so let's get on to those cake forms. Great, thanks very much. In terms of the deer density targets and the habitat condition targets, were those a surprise as you did this review? If not, what kind of additional work should have been going on over the past few years in order to improve the meeting of targets? Well, particularly the population and trends and the overlap into targets. I don't think that Claudia, do you want to start on that point and perhaps Eileen may come in? Are you referring to the section 7 agreement targets? Yes. The targets are set for usually three years in the first instance, and then maybe revised and the habitat targets are the delivering favourable condition targets, and we are constantly, well, not constantly, but we are monitoring them through our engagement to see whether they meet the targets, but it is an adaptive management process where we're trying to keep the voluntary principle going so we set targets, we see if people are reaching them, if they're not, what the reasons are and how they might address them, because in many cases they're across multiple landowners. Some landowners may well be meeting them within the agreement area, but some other landowners aren't. In terms of the habitat targets, they take longer to respond, as we've said, in terms of when you monitor and when you may see the effects of the reduced grazing levels having a beneficial effect on the habitats, but we are monitoring them on a regular basis to inform the judgments going forward and revise and amend the agreements as necessary. Yes, I just would reinforce what Claudia Sayes says. Each of the section 7s are quite different in terms of the scale, the size of the task, the number of different land management units, and sometimes the degree of change that's needed. Some of them require very radical changes in deer numbers, and so it has taken time. Within each of those section 7s there is a mix. There are in many cases people who are willing and engaging and have been very committed to the changes and the targets and so on, but in some there have been some land managers who've been less committed, if you like, and perhaps not attending the meetings and so on. We're working with each of these different groups in slightly different ways. In some cases we've been putting in practical sort of management measures including access tracks, improving access to help the cull targets being achieved. Sometimes there are practical barriers like that. We've been putting in extra measures to help with counting and monitoring of the habitats, so it's not a one size fits all. They're quite time consuming, they require a lot of resources, but we are trying to work with them and put in place measures to bring all the groups together to meet the targets. I think that it's an adaptive process and we are trying to get people on the same page and working in the right direction. I was just wondering if you could clarify with respect to national population estimates for red and roed deer, particularly roed deer, why we're still struggling to gain a baseline for those and what measures you're putting in place to ensure that we've got better estimates of numbers? Claudia Beamish, do you want to start? Thank you very much. You will see from the report that we have not been able to provide a national population figure for red deer or roed deer because we don't believe that the data is robust at the moment, which is why we omitted it from the report. What we've referred to specifically is the work that James Hutton Institute has been doing on our behalf to look at, particularly, the red deer data and the counts that have been carried out since the 60s. That is why we did provide a new national deer density population estimate for red deer because we do believe that that is a robust evidence base. In terms of the roed deer data, we've done some work that is provided that Strathcawley has done in terms of analysing what's happening in the national forest estate, but you're absolutely right that there is further work to be done so that we could be able to advise you on national population densities. James Hutton's work hasn't concluded yet. What we've referred to here are some initial findings and one of the recommendations in the work that they're doing for us is to recommend what would be a robust and cost-effective proportionate way of providing national estimates in the future, based on the data that we gather. Have you contracted James Hutton to do that specifically and for red deer and for roed deer? What's your next move on that in terms of establishing a baseline? Obviously, until we've got that, we can't work out if the targets are being met specifically. Yes, as I understand it, the commission that we have contracted with James Hutton will address both the red and roe count programme going forward to do what's the best way forward to provide more robust estimates at the national level. Do you have timescales for that? That work should report in early 2017, spring. I was going to say that there is quite a distinction between lowlands and uplands in terms of the information and our ability to access information. Within the upland deer range, we send out requests for cull data to be returned to us, and that's largely returned by the majority of landowners in the upland sector. Obviously, that generally gives us good data on red deer. We don't have details of all the people who are undertaking management in the lowlands because obviously there's a much more complex picture of land ownership, so we don't have a mechanism of asking and requesting people to provide that information. Therefore, there is definitely a disparity at the moment in our ability to access information about those two different parts of the country, and obviously that gives us more challenges with the lowlands where the rodea are more of an issue. We are very conscious that that's something that is a gap at the moment and needs to be addressed going forward. Can I just clarify something, Phil? From 2013, this was on the radar of the Racky Committee, we knew all along that the conclusion of 2016 would be the trigger for a review. Should this not have been a workstream that was being developed in that intervening period, so that at the point that you came to conduct a review, you had that information at your fingertips? There is a range of work under way in the lowlands. We've been working with the Association of Deer Management Groups to expand the network of lowland deer management groups, but that is not complete. We're also working with local authorities doing a piece of work to ensure that they're engaged and taking their duties to support deer work responsibly and we're working with them to make sure that the current patchy performance of local authorities is improved. We're also working on a project with a particular part of the lowland deer to see how we can compare different models because there are slightly different needs in terms of collaboration and action in the lowlands, and as yet we don't have a model like we do in the uplands that we can just roll out. It's not an area where there's an obvious quick fix that we can just implement and will give us the gaps and the information because we don't have the tools and we don't have the information gathering mechanisms. We've looked at a number of things including things like agricultural census data to see whether we can get information through that source, but at the moment there isn't something that we can just introduce very easily that will allow us to address those gaps. A two to three year period in which you knew that that information was going to be required, that's the point that I'm getting at. Would you not accept that this baseline of data should have been developed by now? If I could add a point there, it is a very complex area and clearly we would all wish to be at a more robust position, but I think to suggest that there have not been a number of on-going streams of work would not be correct, and in particular for instance we've sought to work with local authorities who have certain responsibilities as well in terms of the deer code, and we have sought to engage, and in fact I've written to quite a number of the local authorities to try to promote that. My understanding is that I think that we have an event plan for early next year I think in April to try to move that on to the next step, but I think that as both my colleagues have described, I think that in terms of the co-ordination, the degrees of collaboration, the access to information, I think that it's a very very challenging area. That's one of the reasons why we've particularly highlighted the lowlands in terms of the need for further work, and clearly we would welcome the comments that this committee and others have in terms of how we can take that forward. My register of interests particularly around farming, forestry and deer management, which I hope gives me some practical insight into today. Just back on the question of deer numbers, I'm just wondering why in section 3 the figures are from 1960 to 2000, but in the summary you show a longer period. Can I ask why you would summarise that rather than an uplift in deer numbers, rather than a more recent reduction, which is maybe more relevant to the trend? Thank you. Yes, what we've looked at is all the account data going back to when they started in 1961, and one of the issues, I'm not sure which page you were referring to specifically, but one of the issues, page 20, I would have liked to have drawn your attention to that. One of the things in terms of going over this with the researchers and academics who've been studying the statistics and how robust the information is, you'll see the confidence levels on each particular account are large because of the opportunity for errors, but what we do have confidence in and is robust is the trend, and so that is the important information. What we've concluded, which is why we flagged up, is that although it is encouraging that the last 10 years have seen a flattening off of that growth and we certainly flagged that up as encouraging, what we concluded is that nationally, deer numbers, deer density are at a high level, which will have an impact on the natural heritage, particularly that's at the national level, what that really masks, which when you go into it, there is a tenfold variation across the country, so there are distinct complexities at the regional level, but we still conclude that at 12.5 deer per kilometre square is still high at a national level to impact the natural heritage. You'd agree that both the accuracy of the data collection and the trend is improving. The trend, the current trend over the last 10 years is encouraging in a flattening off, but the levels are still high at a national level to impact. Just to get us on the record so we're clear, where it talks in bullet point 6 on page 16 of that by 2014-15 it had a return to the 2004 or 2005 call levels, would that be sufficient to admit the challenge that we face if that were to be maintained? Sorry, there was rustling of papers. Page 16, bullet point 8, it talks about the fact that by 2014-15 we had a return to 2004 or 2005 call levels. My question is, if that were to be maintained would that be sufficient to take on the challenge that we face? I'll say something again, I've lost the precise reference that you're referring to and there's so much technical detail in that, but I will try and pick it up for you. One of the areas that James Hutton are doing more work on is about the cull effort and the analysis of the cull returns, and we are going to carry out further analysis as part of that work. What that does show is that cull efforts have doubled in what they're able to deliver over the, I can't remember the time period, but they certainly over the last sort of 30 years up, but I need to check the specific timeframe, but certainly cull efforts have doubled, and that is encouraging. What we are looking at is the interaction between the effort of the cull level and the impact on the deer population density trend, but why I've said it's complex obviously is because what's happening at the regional level is that there's a lot of information to assess, so I can't answer you directly whether it's sufficient. It looks encouraging at the moment in terms of the national figure, but I don't— It depends where the culling is taking place. Yeah, and it also, you know, the other issue obviously is about other herbivores such as sheep. We have done some initial analysis, and there's a little bit of work referred to in one of the annexes, which you may or may not have time to have had a look at. And again, it's something that James Hutton are trying to disentangle at the regional level. We know that there's been a big reduction in sheep numbers across Scotland, but we also know that they haven't happened uniformly, so where has that happened at the regional level and the cull returns as well as the densities? Okay. I just want to make sure we've grasped the question that you've raised, so I just want to make sure— Is that— I think that— Are there other areas that you would like us to— Well, I think that the colleagues are going to come in, Mark Ruskell. Yeah, I just want to return back to the issue of gaps. I mean, you said in the Lowlands there's a very obvious gap in terms of deer management, effectively you're trying to promote an approach here, and there's obviously gaps in the Highlands as well. I mean, is that enough? I mean, if you're sending a letter to local authorities saying, you know, we think you should be leading deer management groups within your local area, I mean, I would imagine most local authorities would look back at the other statutory duties that they have and say, well, we don't have time to do this. We don't have the resource to do this. So what's missing here? Is it a need for additional powers? Is it budget? Is it enforcement? Because clearly, you know, it's not happening. There are gaps appearing across Scotland, and your own report has highlighted particular gaps in the Lowlands. Well, I think in terms of the responses that we've taken forward at the present time, I think it's to get that wider engagement. The point you've made, particularly about local authorities, I'm sure is the case. I mean, I think we know the various challenges they've got, budget and otherwise. But there are some good examples out there. There are some local authorities that actually are engaged, and it's about seeking to sort of promote and share that good practice. Clearly, we're also valuing the contribution that ADMG are making in terms of seeking to promote that as well. My assumption is, I mean, that yourselves and I suspect others will have comments to make in terms of this report, and we look forward particularly to see those. Clearly, our Cabinet Secretary will be making a response as well as an organisation and with others. I've no doubt that there will probably be some points that will be highlighted as part of those responses, and clearly if that then reflects the policy position in Scotland, then we would seek to take that forward. You're not actually wanting to go on the record though and say what changes you think are required. You're highlighting good practice, there's something good going on over here. We'll encourage everybody to adopt that, but you're not actually pointing to what changes that you actually need. In terms of the commission that we had, we were not required to make recommendations. That was very clear, so we have not made recommendations. What we have done though is we've given an evaluation and we've also given a number of conclusions, but what we have deliberately done is leave it open so that people who read this report can then form a view, they can put forward proposals, and very importantly, clearly at a ministerial level, our cabinet secretary can then respond to that. That reflects the commission as it was presented to us. I don't know if many of my colleagues want to add some points. Just to pursue the issues around culling a little bit further, RSPB in a briefing to the committee have suggested that there might be the possibility of modest increased powers to yourselves in order that you could approve forward culling plans from landowners to guarantee management delivers for the public interest. I wonder if you've got any comment on that at this stage. I appreciate that you're not making recommendations, but time and again this morning already, the word complexities come in about section seven about how to proceed to section eight or whatever, and now about the data and how to collect it, whether it's sheep, or whether it's deer, or so many complex issues. I'm just wondering whether that suggestion might be useful. Particularly in terms of cull targets and cull responses, I think that you're aware that I think that there was provision made for that, I think, within the land reform act 2016, which is clearly a very recent piece of legislation. To some extent, that is not reflected in terms of the report. The report was produced, well, probably almost as that was coming into play. So there are a number of areas of either new provision, such as the one that I've highlighted there, or there are some other areas where we have not as yet applied them particularly in terms of the section eight. Although I think that I highlighted an example where we had explored that and may still take that forward depending on circumstances. So I think that it's fair to say that in terms of either new provision or current provision, there are a number of steps that have not as yet been applied. In terms of other approaches, you're quite right. I think that I am reluctant to propose recommendations because that's out with the remit of the piece of work that we were asked to do. But what I would say is that clearly we would be very happy to work and support a range of bodies and organisations and work with them in terms of looking at proposals. In terms of, to go back to your comment about the land reform act, and obviously there are sections of that which refer very clearly to deer management. I don't know if you'd agree, convener, but building on the information that we received in the previous committee and taking those forward through the Scottish Government, Michael Russell and myself. In terms of those actions that have been given, well, those possibilities of action that have been given to yourselves and in terms also of the requirement to comply with the code of practice, are these relevant? Would you see going forward that they would be helpful in that we don't have to wait? We've now got them in the act. I think that I want to make it very clear that we're not suggesting that we would not use those. As far as I'm concerned, there's a range of tools that we've got and we would use them as appropriate. Clearly what may come from responses to this report is that there may be even greater emphasis that certain parties might lay on those. No, as far as I'm concerned, there's no suggestion that we're not using those at all, and the example would be the section 8. Yes, it's true to say that we haven't actually applied it yet, but we haven't actually taken steps to, in one particular situation, where it may still get applied, so we would use it as appropriate. The same would apply in terms of the provision within the land reform act 2016. I don't know if my colleagues wish to add anything else. I'll just pick up on something there, if I may, before I'm sorry for interrupting you again. Although I accept the point that was made earlier about not knowing geographically where the 68,000 deer were called as a complication, on page 30 of your report, you referenced having scrutinised 14 DMGs to get a feel for what was happening out there. As I read that table, only five out of the 14 deer management groups had called to a level that was needed to reduce the population, so that's almost a third of the DMGs. If that's a representative sample, and geographically it's a representative sample, does that not tell us that we really need to be gearing up if we hadn't geared up already to take some action here? Yes, I can understand how you put that interpretation on it. I think that the point that I'd also add is that, clearly, up until now, we have reassessed based on the 2014 baseline. To some extent, what we've now got in this report is a range of, I think, more robust data that reflects that reassessment. I think that one of the powerful things of this document is that it allows us to perhaps have a firmer base then to judge how we can then move things forward, and others could clearly take a view on that as well. In this case, of course, it only applies to the deer management groups, and bear in mind, of course, the deer situation and deer approaches are much bigger than that across Scotland, but it does give us hard information through our engagement with deer management groups and the data that we've got back and the 101 criteria that we've looked at in terms of assessing their management plans. I'm going to see up my apologies. Just to pick up on that point, I mean that sample of 14 DMGs is a snapshot, and I think we're dangerous to interpret too much from that, but you're right to highlight it as something that doesn't suggest the current levels of activity are perhaps as much as they should be, so I think that's something we need to consider going forward. What I was going to come back to was that in doing this review, we were very conscious that it was an SNH review of evidence, and that's principally what it was doing, and we did that in isolation, essentially, because it was a scientific assessment and in evaluation, and the information is there for anybody now to review and comment on, but it was very clear to us that in any going forward there are a whole range of different interventions, everything from providing advice and guidance to funding and funding support and so on, and it wasn't appropriate for us to do that in isolation because there are other Government agencies like Forestry Commission and the National Parks who clearly have a role, and the history of our work with deer has been very collaborative and engaging with the Association of Deer Management Groups and others as well, so I think while there are a range of options, and we have obviously got some thoughts on that because it's inevitable that that will have happened during this review, I think that that is the next step now to discuss that with colleagues within Government and with the range of other stakeholders and determine where, and from guidance from yourself, where it's best to put that time and effort, because there's a complex picture and we will only be able to do so much, so I think that we need some discussion on where best to focus our efforts going forward. Okay, thank you. Let's move on, Emma Harper. Thank you, convener. Thank you for coming today. I am interested in the Lowlands as a member from the south of Scotland. It looks like a lot of money has been spent on studies that reflect those 14 deer management groups in the north. I'm just curious about what further work is proposed to engage with Lowland deer management groups or further investment that you plan so that we have better secure data, because there's hotspots mentioned where there's an increase in need to plan and manage the impacts of deer in the Lowlands. We've touched on this a little bit already. There is work under way and we are continuing to work with the Lowland deer network to try and highlight areas where we can develop collaborative structures, but there is far more players, if you like, and many landowners don't have the same investment or same interest in deer management, and there are also some practical challenges managing deer in Lowland settings where you have far more public interest, you have more public scrutiny, public access, things like that. There are practical challenges, but until we get a really good dataset of who is out there undertaking that work and who the land holdings are and who's doing what, it's quite hard for us to decide how to get all those people around the table, but it's quite clear that the model that exists in uplands, we can't just replicate that because it would require so many people around the table, it wouldn't be manageable, so that's clearly something we need to look at and just find out how best to address those gaps. So the plan will be to engage with the local people? We have a pilot project at the moment, which is looking at a range of different approaches, because what we have is quite often, we have people who are recreational stalkers who want to go out and do some stalking, but they don't have their own land, so we're trying to look at different ways of matching those people with an interest to landowners who've got land where they would like deer to be managed, so it's a different type of approach and we currently have a pilot project looking at different kind of approaches and to see which is most effective and which delivers the public interests in the best way, so that hopefully will give us something that will then be a basis for saying well you know this is something that we can now roll out more widely. So that is due to complete next next year. Would you see that pilot project or the conclusions to be drawn from the pilot project being taken up by other agencies like the Forestry Commission? Forestry Commission is a partner in that piece of work, so they are a key player in the lowlands because they do have large land holdings and are very keen in, there are a number of areas where they want to see woodland expansion, so we are working with them very closely to make sure that their interests are represented and we find a solution that works for them. Okay, okay, good to get that in the record. Alexander Burnett? There's been a lot to talk about, obviously, the density of population numbers. I'm just wondering where we are in terms of whether the real issue here is impact and how much more of a focus should be on impact rather than densities? Well, in terms of, I think, you know, the main thrust of our assessment and the comment on the step change, I think that that does reflect a great deal in terms of impact, particularly in terms of natural heritage impact. I think particularly, you know, some of the points that were highlighted by the previous Rocky Committee and were reflected in the commission itself, so particularly around, you know, natural heritage and some of the feedback in terms of site condition monitoring, information around the section sevens and also, I think, while a report at the Rocky Committee would have looked at in terms of the native woodland survey, I think that the evidence from that really highlights one of the, you know, the primary areas that we feel, you know, that step change has not taken place, particularly if you put it in the time frame of the biodiversity strategy and the 2020 targets. I don't know if you want to add anything on that, Claudia. I mean, I may come in on a bit of detail there just to add that the, I can't remember if I mentioned it earlier, so apologies if I did, that the DEAR Act puts a duty on DCS, DEAR commission, and then now on SNH to take into account national populations, which is why this is the first time we've been able to go through the data and make it robust to be able to advise on that, but absolutely we will continue to work locally and regionally because, as I said as well, about the variation in the densities across the country, the impact and what's happening with other species, you know, the managing, the local impacts will be the critical issues in going forward. It's just that a lot of the DMGs have written plans which maintain population balance with habitat, but the report's concluding that maintaining populations is a bad thing, but that's clearly not the case all across Scotland, is it? Sorry, I didn't quite understand the question. A lot of the management groups have written plans which are maintaining population numbers because they've done assessments on the habitat, but yet the report's concluding that maintaining populations is a bad thing, which is a very broad brush conclusion and doesn't really recognise there are some areas, some DMGs, where this isn't the case, so reports may be slightly misleading in letting people think that it's not all I hope it isn't misleading, but it's certainly complex and a substantial amount of work, and I'm trying to find the page which goes into the more the finer analysis of the regional breakdown, because what it does show, and I think that underpinned one of our core conclusions, is that across much of the upland DMG areas, there are still high deer densities, I was just trying to find the table, it's probably on page 23 or something, because it's just after that page 20. I'd agreed deeper down in the report, I think it's just unfortunate, but in the summary, at the top level, maybe that difference isn't reflected, and that's probably a comment, maybe I don't know, you might take on board. I suppose the further question is where this is all leading, I know you're saying that you're not making recommendations, but it would seem that if you get to the conclusion that you're trying to get densities down to allow a natural regeneration of woodlands without fencing, does that mean you're aiming for between zero and four deer per square kilometre? Is that the sort of way, the fair conclusion from what you're saying here? Yes, I don't think there's a magic number that we're looking for, and I think what we've done in this report, you're absolutely right that impacts are ultimately what we want to achieve, because if we want environmental change and environmental improvement, then impacts are ultimately what we need to impact on. But where the information on population and population trends is particularly useful is allowing that feedback loop to see if a management or a deer management group has undertaken a range of measures. We can then see relatively soon what impact that's having on populations, and then ultimately that's an indicator of what we might expect in terms of habitat change over time. I think the other thing that's of interest is that we have undertaken a research review, which has been undertaken again over the last year, and there's actually a seminar tomorrow where we'll be discussing findings with stakeholders. But one of the things that emerged from that process was that stakeholders were identifying information on population trends and local population density as being quite important for them in helping them make decisions and supporting that adaptive management approach, because we really want local ownership. If the voluntary approach is going to work, then there has to be that information flow and that ability to see if we undertake that type of intervention, we can see that we're getting the right response. So I think populations are very useful in that sense as an indicator and as a proxy, but ultimately impacts are crucial as you've identified. Can I just pick up on something? Although I appreciate this, it is difficult at times to determine whether it's deer or other herbivores that are impacting on some of our protected sites, but in evidence that the committee took from the RSPB on biodiversity, we were told, and I quote, deer management is a key issue in addressing the condition of some of our designated sites and the expansion of native woodland. 18 per cent of protected areas, mostly in the uplands in Scotland, are in a favourable condition because of the impact of deer browsing. Is that a stat you would accept? If so, what would that stat say about the success or other ways of the current approach? I can answer on the statistics, and the way that I have it in my head is different to the way that the RSPB has presented it. So if I can explain how we've presented it in the report, whether that meets the 18 per cent, I'm not quite sure, you'll know that the national figure for protected sites being in favourable condition is at 81 per cent, and that's a national performance indicator for the government. What we have assessed is that for sites that are affected by herbivores within deer management groups, that is 10 per cent lower than the national indicator, so that would be 71 per cent. I was trying to do the maths anyhow. In areas covered by the lowland deer, it's 12 per cent lower, so one of our key conclusions that underpins the evidence that we've come to, the conclusion that we've come to, is that deer are a major factor in unfavourable condition of protected sites. I think that it sounds similar area in terms of the ballpark figure, but the way that we might have looked at it and again there's a lot of different ways that you can count it. The question still has to be answered. If we accept something around there as being accurate, what does that tell us about the success or otherwise of the approach that we've taken to date? I repeat something that I said earlier on. I think that one of the main factors that has influenced our conclusion that the step change has not been achieved, and I say that it's across the whole piece, is that we have not seen the progress that we would like, particularly in terms of natural heritage impacts. Clearly, there is a need for further work. In terms of the steps that may be taken, there are probably a range of options. I would emphasise that there are probably still some tools that are there that perhaps can be used to greater effect, but there may be other options as well. However, what we're not doing is suggesting that that means that deer management groups and the work of the Association of Deer Management Groups have been unsuccessful. I think that a lot has been achieved, but what we have not done is we have not delivered in terms of natural heritage within particularly the 2020 timeframe. Given that you have acknowledged both here and in the report the work of the ADMGs, why do you think that they have responded angrily? Perhaps that's an exaggeration, but they are clearly unhappy with some of what's in the report. What do you think lies behind that? I'm not going to try and second guess. I have read the reports, and I know that you will be taking evidence from ADMGs in the near future. I think that my response would be, and I'm sure that this has now happened, is to read the report in its entirety and recognise that it's not about any direct criticism or blame. The DMGs have an important role to play, but I think that in terms of deer management in Scotland it's a much bigger picture than that. Certainly in terms of any solution as we move forward, particularly to address the challenge around natural heritage, I think that part of that solution most certainly is the work of ADMGs and what DMGs can actually deliver. Mark Ruskell wants to come in. It perhaps undermines the case for SNH to have more powers if you haven't used the powers that you've already got. This is clearly going to be a criticism that's going to be levelled at you by the Association of Deer Management Groups and others that any kind of shift towards more intervention when your track record has been basically voluntarism is going to be quite hard. In terms of getting that step change, how do you address that concern? We've got to bear in mind that the policy position, as stated and restated, was about promoting the voluntary approach. That was the policy position. I think that the critical date was the end of this year and the fact that we would then carry out a review at the end of this year. To some extent it reflects the policy as it was presented. Yes, there were tools there, particularly in terms of section 7 and section 8. We have certainly made use of section 7. In terms of section 8, we have taken steps, as I've already described. I won't repeat it, but we have taken steps to look at where that would be appropriate to use, particularly in one circumstance. I don't take a view that that means that other options are not possible. To some extent that will undoubtedly be influenced probably by the deliberations of this committee and, in particular, by the view that our cabinet secretary takes in terms of this particular report and whatever response she makes. Are there other options influenced by your available budget and capacity as an organisation? You mentioned in the report that the implementation of section 7 costs £0.25 million a year. What happens when you reach £0.25 million at the end of that budget? Do you wire in money from elsewhere? I think that you'll be aware that we have made a significant commitment in terms of our work with Deere and there's a number of, I think, probably somewhere between 10 and 12 full-time people are committed to this. There's a range of other members of staff that are involved. I think that the latest figure that I've got is that our investment, particularly around pay bills in excess of £1 million in terms of the work that we do in Deere and there's a whole range of things that we do in terms of counts and other areas of support. We have a significant investment in commitment. However, in terms of the point that you raise, as you make use of section 7s, as you do apply, if we do section 8s, there are significant resource implications that go with that. I'm aware of, in the case of one that we're involved with at the present time, and yes, it is very demanding. What we are doing at the present time is that we are managing our particular labour resource to deliver that. Clearly, if you had a number of such activities that were on-going, it would have a resource implication and it would have implications across our budget as a whole, yes. As an organisation, if you were to start using the powers under the Land Reform Act to encourage or enforce community involvement and ensure that there are dear management plans and areas where there currently aren't any and to increase fines around section 8s, would you have the budget and capacity to deliver that? I think that it's important to get the message out that clearly we would apply those but use them as appropriate. I think that if you had a number of situations where you had to do that, that would be based on an assessment and it would be about what would be the most appropriate action. Yes, I think that it could impose some challenges on our budget but I can't quantify that because it's an unknown at the present time. I think that the message I would make is that, yes, there are resource implications that go with the use of these powers, as they are with a whole range of activities that we're involved with. I mean, we have responsibilities that we take forward with us to do with the marine environment, the land environment, and as you take forward certain areas of work, resources go with it and what we do is we manage those resources and you make an assessment and you deploy as appropriate. But, yes, there are significant demands that could go with that. Can I just come in on the budget to do that again? On the subject of budget, in the letter that's gone from the chairman of the ADMG to the members, it's claimed that they've had to step in to provide funding for the revival and updating of wild deer best practice and to roll out the data processing model swad, both necessary tools for future progress and now casualties of cuts to SNH's budgets. Is that accurate? I'll just make a general comment and then Eileen may come on the specifics but I would just emphasise that in terms of our commitment to deer that if you look at the number of full-time posts, we are looking at about 12 at the moment and in the past that had gone down as far as seven and six. In fact, we have increased the number of people who are involved. If you look at the amount of money that we've particularly through pay bill, if you look at 2012 it was about £0.9 million and 2016 it's £1.13 million. I can't talk on the detail that you've raised because I don't have that information. It may be that Eileen can but there is a very significant commitment of people and resource in terms of supporting deer activity. There's a whole range of other specifics that I could look at around our involvement in counts and the support to deer management plants, which deer management plants also inquire an investment of cash as well. Eileen? I'll come back to the specifics of wild deer best practice and sward in a second but I think the more general points about the feedback from ADMG and whether we have funding or not, I think what this review has really helped is identifying where we need to focus our efforts. So in relation, if you look on page 76 in relation to the DMG plans, you'll see that there's a wide variation across DMGs in how they've approached the task of the DMG assessment and their level of engagement and their level of commitment to action. So we would hope to be working with ADMG and with these DMGs so that that good practice which is clearly, you know, can be demonstrated, we can use those as models and help to try and encourage the rest of the DMGs to get up to that kind of standard. One of the things that's important is that, you know, there has been a huge amount of effort in the way DMGs are run, the governance arrangements, the attendance, the whole kind of management of the process and the mapping and the planning and what we need to do is make sure that that translates into action and implementation on the ground. So this is a process and what we've done is really a snapshot in time but work is ongoing and we want to now sit down and discuss with DMGs and ADMG about how we can support them to roll out that progress and make sure it's maintained and that's part of the reason why we've made the comment about how confident we can be because it's working in progress and we're not sure to what extent that will be sustained and can be sustained, you know, without continuing levels, the same levels of investment that have been in place over the last couple of years. So I think it's important to emphasise that it's not just SNH, the range of other players who can and do engage and will be supporting this process and Forestry Commission have we've touched on as well or a major player. Coming back to the more specific points about a couple of projects that have been under way for some time while Dear Best practice is fairly established and very well received and has actually been transported to a number of different countries. It's a programme of practice and a manual, essentially, that the dear commission started and SNH has taken forward with the industry in partnership developing guides and rolling those out. And some time ago, several years ago, we started discussing with the industry that this was now established, it was the process of developing guides was quite comprehensive and actually made sense now for it to be more of a rather than SNH funding and maintaining and leading on this, it was actually more sensible now for it to be either industry led or industry to take a stronger role in taking that forward. So those discussions have been under way for some time and so we are certainly not intending to stop our input and stop our involvement but the discussions at the moment are quite well advanced with the DEAR initiative that they're a sort of again a partnership between government and the DEAR sector in England and they are going to be helping us to develop and take forward DEAR practice guides but we are hoping that ADMG and we can get more private investment in that so it becomes really a kind of an industry led and an industry model because I think that would be great if that can be done and that's quite promising. In relation to SWORD again that was a project which is about rolling out habitat impact assessment tools for the industry and we are working with the industry to support that so we hope to maintain our input and maintain our investment but we would like it to be a joint endeavour and so these are kind of areas of work that are in transition and they're certainly not things that we are stopping supporting but we would like them to be developed in partnership going forward and with the industry playing a key role. So to be clear between the contribution from yourself and from Ian Ross what I read into what you're saying is that you're still putting one way or another a great deal of money into DEAR management do we conclude from that what you're saying that budget pressures overall are not impacting on your ability to invest as you need to around DEAR management? I think what we're saying is that we are fulfilling that commitment but clearly there could be additional pressures in the future which we would seek to manage but it could be very challenging. Claudia Beamish. Thank you convener could I just come back briefly to a comment that you made Eileen about the you said that you were hoping for private investment I mean I wonder if you can say a bit more about that because there are vast tracks of Scotland where private landowners do own areas of course which have serious problems and some are are working very very well as we understand from the review with DEAR management groups others not so well there's also a more complex picture in terms of more fragmentation of ownership in some of the lowlands but certainly not in some of South Scotland which I represent where there are again very large landowners you say you're hoping for what can you just clarify what you mean by that and what expectation SNH might have either from yourself or colleagues to comment on what they might have about the expectation that landowners would contribute and I appreciate that the DEAR management letter has highlighted that there are contributions but can you clarify that for me? Certainly I mean I think these kind of things are better facilitated by ADMG because they have the links they have the networks you know they are working with all these estates who are members of that organization association DEAR management groups so we haven't worked out the detail of funding packages but it's very encouraging that they are all levering in this private investment and I mean we would really hope that that we can continue and we can find models up until this point we haven't been able to get that package of funding together but you know I think that the continued interest and the continued focus from the committee will I'm sure give more of an impetus to some of that private investment coming forward. Would you also think that it would be useful for yourselves to create a publicly accessible register of DEAR management plans so that that could be accessed by the public and by other DEAR management groups so that they could see good practice or indeed poor practice and do you have any comment on that? Yes I'm not sure that that's necessary one of the improvements that's been most significant is the availability of information and the DEAR management plans being made publicly available and the ADMG is aiming for them all to be in a central place so that they are easily accessible and can be seen and compared and viewed and so on so there may be no necessity to step in if the industry leads. How are they publicly available at the moment then? If I wanted to find out what was happening in a particular area how would I go about that? At the moment it's still all in development but the intention is that there will be a portal a portal that you can access it through the ADMG website and you'll be able to go in there and access all the DEAR management plans. So at the moment more importantly perhaps myself just as a member of the committee but if somebody wanted to access information about a particular DEAR management group that they would like to become involved in whether they were an NGO or a member of a community group that wanted to have representation or indeed a smaller landowner who wasn't represented how would they access the information in the minutes and how would they go about finding out how they could get involved? The information isn't uniform across the pieced at the moment and different DMGs are making things available in a different way so that will be I think an on-going piece of work just to make sure that there's a central point or people are aware how they can get this information and how they can input and engage. That's an area we'll explore in two weeks time with the DEAR management groups and they're in front of the committee. The SNH report looks at three approaches to protect woodland in simple terms. Culling or limited culling and then fencing all of course which require considerable investment from public funds. What sort of cost benefit analysis do you look at at more senior level to work out the best use of other fencing, limited culling or a more broad-scale culling? Those are very expensive aspects to carry out. Perhaps I'll ask Ian Ross. I think that in terms of the detail of that, I have to say that Mr Stewart, I was inclined to turn to my colleagues who have a greater familiarity with it. Claudia, do you want to kick off? In terms of the socioeconomics, you'll see that one of the gaps is flagged up is that there is no robust information on the financial impacts that DEAR grazing does to commercial forestry or to native woodlands. That is a gap in the knowledge. We've discussed it with colleagues in forestry commission and forest enterprise about what their assessment and analysis is and there is nothing that they can provide at the moment that is sufficiently robust that we were able to report. There would be no way of currently carrying out that cost benefit analysis that you suggest. The only figures that we have is the cost of fencing. Roughly—I think that it's 4.8 million that we report as an annual cost. What we have assumed in our thinking, but it's not actually in the report, is that the cost of damage to forestry must be more than that because otherwise foresters wouldn't be seeking to fence off the forests, but there isn't any other way of working that out. Can you take my point that any large organisation that, like your own, be it Marks and Spencer's or in the public sector or in the private sector, would obviously look at very intensive cost benefit analysis before going ahead with those key decisions? Why should that not apply to SNH and public bodies? I see the purpose and the point of that question. I think that there is a real issue in terms of the value and investment in fencing in particular. I think that that's clearly a policy decision that would need to be made there. I wasn't familiar with the figure, but if it's about 4.8 million a year, if you multiply that over a 10 or 20-year period, it clearly is a very significant figure. What I don't have is the breakdown in terms of how much of that is supported by grant support. I would suspect that there would be a significant amount that would certainly come through SRDP or particularly through the Forestry Commission management of that, but there is clearly a policy decision there. If there was a policy decision and it was made in terms of the future support for deer fencing, clearly that would then have a number of implications as far as the deer management would be impacted by that. Can I just raise one point before I ring Claudian? You'll be aware from page 42 of the report that age of fencing is an absolute crucial issue and you'll be aware that 3,000km of fencing was built before 2000, so clearly you've got a point of deterioration on this, which is a huge distance to cover. I suppose the big question is why should the public person continue to have to fund this? Yes, and not an easy question for me to answer, but one of the reasons that we've made sure that we've reflected that as much as possible, particularly in terms of aspect of wider economic impacts, is so that that can be considered, but you're right. It has a very significant impact and you can do the fairly straightforward arithmetic to see how that looks. Just a further point about that, I think it was Mark Ruskell who asked about what kind of density we might be looking at and you made a reference to density yourself, sorry, of 4 to 5, and that's the sort of deer density that you're looking for if you want to establish trees without fencing, so inevitably fencing has been in some places certainly the only short term means of establishing trees and getting trees to grow and it does allow you to have two different management objectives in neighbouring land and reconcile them because there's a fence and so you can maintain different deer densities and support on the one hand woodland regeneration on the other hand perhaps ongoing sporting activities, so I think it's been the practical and pragmatic solution, but I think you're right that there hasn't been a sort of a very considered approach to that cost-benefit analysis and that's maybe something that needs more focus on going forward. I was interested in key finding 7 in the specific chapter that we're discussing now, which said that, and I summarise this, that evidence gathered to date suggests that deer management in Scotland results in the net monetary loss for both the private and the public sectors. Would you like to say a bit more about that? Thank you. Yes, we did conclude that based on the evidence in front of us. As you know, we didn't carry out any new analysis on socioeconomic data because that was not what was requested of us, so what we have relied on are two well-known reports that have been published by Pachec and Putnam and there are a lot of gaps in both the costs and in the benefits, so we've also said that in terms of our analysis that we've brought, which is in line with other commentators, that it wouldn't necessarily make sense to quantify some of those benefits in economic terms because we know that 66% of Scottish people most quickly associate wild red deer with Scotland as an iconic species. You can't put a value on that and the cultural social benefits that deer play in many ways, so we've advised against carrying out any net socioeconomic impact. Sorry if I lost it, but what was the key point that you referred to? Although we did conclude on the basis of the information there, we do also say that there are many gaps and we would caution against summarising a direct economic trade-off. I think that you've touched on my next question, but I'll say it anyway, because I appreciate that it's not an easy question to answer, but what would you estimate the net annual cost of deer management to the public purses in Scotland? We haven't added them up, although one could do in the column. What we have provided is what we think are the annual estimates, but as you'll see from the table, there are many areas where there are gaps and they are unknown, so we didn't decide to summarise those, given the uncertainties. The figures have some caveats in them, as you'll see as you go into them, so we've provided what we have confidence in that's there. What you're also seeing is that there is a quantifiable benefit in terms of tourism in Scotland as well, so it's a very difficult question to summarise. My last question, convener, is what is your management approach to dealing with non-compliant groups and landowners to participate in sustainable deer management? Would you need more carrot, more stick or both? To some extent, we have and are potentially dealing with a situation in which that could arise. The indication is that we would be prepared to take forward a section 8 if they would not deliver in terms of the deer plan. We're not in that position yet. I think that I would hope always that we would take the reasonable position. We would set clear targets, whether it's called targets of the delivery of a deer and implementation of a deer management plan, but we would also put some clear timeframes in that as well. If that is not delivered, we would make the necessary step to apply section 8. As a board—we have discussed this point in principle and in practice—the board has taken the view that they would support that step. With the voluntary approach that was shown not to work for some non-compliant groups, you would consider more severe action to ensure that action was carried out? Yes. As a board, we have discussed that point and agreed an approach. In fact, we had a meeting in the middle of this year where we looked at a particular case. One of the potential outcomes in terms of a board decision could have been the application of a section 8. We decided, based on the evidence in front of us and an assessment of the position, that there had been a slight change, but a significant change in terms of the collective approach that the reasonable thing was to allow them to proceed and to demonstrate that they could actually deliver both in terms of call targets and the implementation of the deer management plan, but we did impose a very clear timeline. The timeline was a review in November, which we discussed last week at a board meeting, and then a final position in terms of whether it was progressing as we would wish, and that was to take place in March of next year. Depending on the position in March of next year, I emphasise that there may be a decision to apply a section 8. Clearly, our wish is that things can go forward based on collaboration and the voluntary approach, but they need to demonstrate that they can deliver. I want to tease out some of the section 8 stuff in a second, but before that, Claudia Beamish. It is looking at your main findings in relation to socioeconomic benefits and to ask whether you have done any work or you are working in collaboration with anyone else in relation to one of the points that you highlighted, which is the sale of venison, which came up in the RACI committee before, because there are obviously strong opportunities in rural parts of Scotland to develop this. Should I pick up some of that? I can maybe start and Eileen might have further information. You are right. The report that has in it, as we have reiterated and emphasised, is the evidence to date. We have not said other work that we are involved in or where we think there may be opportunities to develop the benefits and optimise further benefits from the deer industry. Certainly, the sale of venison is one opportunity. We are involved with the Scottish Venison Partnership and provide the secretariat for that group in order to promote the supply chain of venison and to improve the skills of people of how they might both cook it, to improve it for catering and butchers, to try and promote the use of venison by the general public and the sale of it. We also run a number of skills workshops to improve people's skills. You have mentioned section 8 a number of times this morning, including what is presumably the one that we were told was imminent some two to three years ago, and it has still not been put in place. Earlier you said that you would continue to explore that and may implement section 8 in March next year. Given the assurances that the former Iraqi committee was given, why has that section 8 that was promised not been implemented? Why have you been so reluctant to enforce a section 8 to date, particularly in Ardbar, which, as we know, has received significant press and social media coverage in recent years? Why have you been so reluctant to implement a section 8 and would it not help to concentrate minds if at least one were to be served? It is fair to say that the initial process I think was overly prolonged and that was the view that our board formed about 18 months ago. I have not got the exact time span but we did have a discussion on this and we felt that there was a need to have clarity in terms of what was expected and also the timeline that would apply. It is also important to recognise that there are steps that you need to go through, steps in terms of the development. Those steps were taken over a considerable period of time when we started looking at this two to three years ago? My recollection is that when we looked at the process and the steps, we felt that there were perhaps some points where there could be a challenge and we had to make sure that we would apply those steps properly. However, I emphasise what I said at the moment in terms of the board's view. We felt that it had been overly prolonged and that there had to be absolute clarity in terms of what was expected. I think that that was the change that took place in terms of the approach that was adopted and the clear message that then went to the dear group that was responsible for that area. That is where we are now. As I said, it was in June that we had a board meeting and at that stage there could have been a decision to apply a section 8. There was one change and the change was that, in terms of all the owners, they collectively came back to us and said that they had formed an agreement to work together. That had not been the case before. There had been some owners who were not necessarily part of that collaboration. We felt that, based on an assessment of the position and to take the reasonable approach, we should allow them to demonstrate that they could deliver. That was to deliver against some clear targets and against a clear timeline. That was a decision that was made not to proceed to a section 8. That was in about June time. However, we also agreed that we would review the position in November and, if we felt that progress was not being made, we would reserve the right then to apply regulation. We had an update report on Thursday of last week. The primary thing that we were looking at at that stage was just the reports on the STAG call. That was in line with expectation and also in terms of the location across the peninsula as a whole. However, the key report would be about March of next year, and that is when we would take a final position. Then we would look at a range of factors, which would be other calls and also the work in terms of taking forward the deer management plan. In March of next year, there will be a significant review and a decision will be made. Clearly, I do not know what that decision will be. We will wait until we see the information in front of us, but the application of a section 8 is a possibility. However, clearly, we would wish that they could demonstrate that they could deliver without the need to apply a section 8. That is not because we are trying to avoid a section 8 for section 8's sake. It is just that we believe that if we have a collaborative approach and people are actually delivering by working together, that is probably the best position to have. In 2015, the Racket Committee was told that the phrase that was used was risk appetite, that the issue was that it was required to demonstrate quite clearly that the damage was caused by deer and not other herbivores. I think that you have touched upon that being a key factor in it. To be absolutely clear today, do you feel restricted in any way to use a section 8 for fear that it would be subject to a legal challenge? Are the powers that you have sufficiently robust to implement? Are you confident in what you have at your disposal? In terms of section 8, we would be prepared to apply a section 8. We would do an assessment and we would make a decision to apply. Whether it would then be subject to a legal challenge, that may very well be, but that would not stop us doing it. I would demonstrate an example that is not directly involved with deer. As you know, we have taken a position in terms of general licensing. We have made decisions where we have removed a general licence. In some cases, those are now the subject of a judicial review. We clearly examine that and make a decision. We clearly are key colleagues that we talk to, but I think that demonstrates our commitment to take forward and apply the tools in our toolbox. Angus MacDonald wants to come back. Okay, thanks. Just to follow up on the timeline that you mentioned, are you in a position to share with the committee whether the DMG in question has followed up on their commitment to work together? In terms of working together on producing the necessary stag call, yes. We were reassured in terms of the report, and the report is in the public domain, and you can see it. I still think that there are probably some outstanding issues that need to be resolved before March of next year. Clearly, we are working with the group to take that forward, but there are still some challenges there. Right at the present time, I cannot say exactly where we will be in March, but what I can say is that if we are not satisfied that it can be delivered, we will be able to make use of appropriate regulation. Specifically, with section 8, do you require more resources to implement section 8? Well, to some extent, that relates back to a point that I made earlier on. We recognise that the application of section 7, section 8, particularly some of the complex cases such as Ardvar, is very resource demanding. If you had a number of such cases, that would apply significant demand in terms of our available resource. We would only move to that where we felt that in terms of the situation, the evidence and the analysis that was the appropriate action, but it could be demanding in terms of resources. Can I just touch on section 7, Mr Ross? Am I right in saying that when the Deer commission was subsumed into SNH in 2010, there were nine section 7s in place and one about to be signed? That would suggest that there has only been one introduced since 2010. Has there not been a need for further section 7s in that time? Eileen, are you able to come to that? I mean, no is the short answer because all of those section 7s to date have been established where there was impacts and damage on protected areas. That information has been known for some time because our site condition monitoring information allowed us to identify the hot spots and take action some time ago. Those areas to date have been identified. If more emerging things change, then we would look to introduce new section 7s, but we have not identified something and then held back. We feel that we have those covered at the moment. In the report, there is extensive analysis, but I am keen to get some hard numbers in terms of the number of DMGs that you think have met the criteria. In the report, it states that there is variation among the DMGs and that most performed well against most public interests and benchmark categories. Can you pin down how many you think are meeting criteria? One of the challenges in carrying out the work is that there was no clear threshold set about how to determine what would signify a step change. We have not concluded where Eileen drew your attention to the table. I think that it is on page 71 or something. I will check 76. We have not concluded what would represent an overall pass or fail rate. There is not a simple answer to that question, but we have got very clear analysis on the precise assessment over the 101 criteria, whether they are red, amber or green. We have drawn our conclusions on those. We have highlighted and the chairman has mentioned some of the areas where there has been specific progress. We do not want to lose sight of where that progress has been made, but in terms of sticking to the terms of the commission that was set us, we also have specifically—to try and make sense of the amount of data in front of us—a core number of the natural heritage categories. For each of those, they score a lower proportion of green scorings than all the other categories. There is further data when you look at the criteria level, because the categories are summaries of criteria that informed our judgment in conclusion about the lack of progress on the natural heritage categories. What kind of percentage of DMGs are you satisfied with? We have not drawn that conclusion. What we have done is provided the evidence, and that will be for the debate, for the discussion at the committee. What we have here is provided—this is the evidence that we think that we particularly pulled out of the natural heritage category, but there are 101 criteria that we looked at. What we concluded—the variation—also that we flagged up and that was important is that, within a DMG, some landowners are scoring green on everything and are carrying forward the green rating of the DMG. It is complex, but we were not asked to set a parcel fail rate. Let's come at this from a slightly different direction. When we set out on this journey in 2014, where we are now today, would you have expected to be here better or worse? What progress has been made in terms of what you would have expected in a general sense when we set out on this journey? Yes. It's easy with hindsight to say that we have established this assessment and Clawdy has referenced some of the complexity. Now we have this information. What we should do is look at what are those criteria, which are most important and where we think we would like to see most progress being made. I think that's the sort of thing that we can have discussions and perhaps try to set those thresholds so that we can identify the good performers and we can say to the poorer performers, these are the areas that they need to approve on and this is the threshold. I think that's an area that we can work on. In a general sense as to whether we think progress is as we anticipated, I think that what we have seen and which has been very encouraging is the extent, and I touched on this earlier, to how well the DMGs have responded to the benchmark, which is about their ways of working and about how they share information with the public and engage wider stakeholders. That has generally been good and solid progress and I think that that is a good, if you like, foundation to build on. Where we need to go next is in terms of now they have the information in terms of the habitat impacts and the targets. We need to start seeing all of the DMGs identify actions and there are some areas in relation to some of those natural heritage indicators where actions have yet to be identified and I think that's the area that we would expect most focus on and where perhaps we would have expected more to be done in relation to some of the targets like woodland expansion and improvement in woodland condition. Information has been supplied by SNH and we've been providing advice on areas that we think could be improved and the kind of actions we'd like to see built into plans and some have done that but others haven't. I think that that's the area that we would have expected perhaps more progress on because that's a key step again ensuring that that translates into management action on the ground. Essentially, the foundations have been laid by the vast majority but it's that building on those that's the issue. It's a process, you have to have the foundation, you then have to have the plans and identify the actions and then hopefully that will lead to implementation and change on the ground and so we're sort of you know several steps along that line but perhaps not quite at the level we would hope to be. For the record chair of course we're giving a detailed feedback to each individual DMG and I think I'd also make the point because when you look at the graph as it stands there clearly you don't necessarily know the detail that sits behind that but they will know. For instance there are probably a small number of DMGs there that have just been created in the very recent past so that at a very very early stage and that part of the work that we've been doing of late is clearly with ADMG to encourage new DMGs so for instance there's one that's just been created in the USTS so it would be at a very very early stage in terms of the process there. That doesn't reflect particularly well on that process does it because they knew that there was a review coming in early 2017, wait 2016, one would have expected greater progress to be made if they were serious about addressing those issues? If I think of the particular situation in terms of the US I wouldn't apply that criticism. I think that in terms of taking a collaborative approach you know there's been very recent encouragement there have been particular situations that needed to be applied there so to some extent I think what we need there is to offer them encouragement and I think there's you know the prospect of a number of some of the concerns that we've highlighted plus others for instance there's a Lyme disease concern that's particularly prominent there that this allows steps to be taken that can address that but in terms of in terms of if you look at the diagram it would be predominantly red I would suspect. Just looking at things in the round I mean even on the basis of the report the evaluation seems to highlight there's been a lot of boardroom discussions and planning and a lack of implementation. I just really want to get clarification from yourselves that you feel you have one sufficient budget but secondary sufficient powers in order to ensure quick progress particularly in relation to the challenges outlined in the Scottish biodiversity route map to 2020. I think particularly in terms of the biodiversity route map I think that's one of the the timeframe measures that we've applied this to and clearly you know this what we're saying is that we do not believe in terms of delivering aspects of the natural heritors that are affected by deer that that will be achieved and that's part of the judgment call in terms of the step change not being achieved. I am reluctant to say something that could be considered to be a recommendation but you know we have a number of tools as I've described some are very new and have yet to be applied some have been there for some time and we're in the process of applying them where they are appropriate. I would also make the point that I think there is great merit in the voluntary approach but in terms of natural heritage you know we need to accelerate that and we need to make use of some of those existing tools and you know we would value the comments of this committee and others in terms of what other measures might be appropriate. Finlay Carson, going back somewhat you've given us some indication to how you engage with DMGs that are performing poorly but is there any sanction available to SNH and do you think that's a tool that you need to to see continued improvement? Well I think some of my colleagues may know more than this but certainly some of the points I've highlighted for example just provision within the land reform act 2016 and clearly you know some of the sections that have been there since the deer act in the 1990s they are there and you know I think we've already made a statement that clearly we would apply those as appropriate you know there's nothing for there's no dubiety that we will use the tools that are available to us and I don't want anyone to get the message that we would not but it would be based on an objective assessment and the evidence is there to support it. I would just add as well it's also about the role of incentives obviously about the ability of DMGs to deliver what needs to be delivered and we haven't carried out a full analysis as you'll see in the review of of how incentives are taken up how effective they are what amount of funding is being delivered through SRDP for deer managers is it at the right level so the role of incentives is also obviously going to be important about making sure DMGs progress. Look at my cross call. I just wanted to come back very briefly on the issue of judicial reviews that was raised earlier on. I mean clearly any organisation that fears that its decisions could be judicially reviewed is going to spend some time you know considering options and considering its approach to things and understand why you know in one particular case it seems to have come back repeatedly to your board at that level for discussion but I mean without going into specifics just more generally as an organisation how do you how do you kind of strengthen your backbone if you like in terms of your response to potential judicial reviews because you know one side if you're an interest and you want to overturn your decision you've got deep enough pockets and you know that this organisation is risk averse then you know you'll just push the button and you'll go ahead and you'll employ your lawyers and you'll go to judicial review but is there something in terms of data or a legal change which could be required which would make your ability to make strong enforcement decisions where appropriate more robust and more able to withstand any kind of legal challenge that may arise is there a weakness here I know that's a difficult question for you to answer but you know what might be the terms of any theoretical judicial review would it be around data would it be around something else which perhaps you don't have such a robust basis to defend your decision on I can't comment on the legal aspects of judicial review I'm not a lawyer but what I can say is that for instance where we were discussing that particular section eight that has been raised before the frustration that was expressed by the board was that we were taking too long to actually move the process forward and the clarity that came from the board was the board were supportive of the application of a section eight where the evidence clearly indicated that was the appropriate course to take. I can't recall whether we talked about judicial review what I can say though is that was not a factor that influenced the board in taking that decision and I would make reference back to the you know the general licensing example where we we applied that we removed the general license and yes it is subject to judicial review but at no stage were we saying we can't do this we don't want to get involved in the judicial review process those are the those are the powers those are the duties we have we applied them we apply them based on objective assessment it's costly though it can be and as someone it's been involved with other organisations which have been subject to inquiries and judicial review I think you have to do the right thing okay um as we've gone through this today I think you've said on a number of occasions that you globally didn't make recommendations about the way forward that wasn't your remit but on the final page of the report it says the review indicates that longer term improvements may not be forthcoming without additional measures to enhance sustainable deer management that management in scotland presumably that goes beyond the powers that have been granted you in the land reform act so what do you have in mind with that statement I would put on that it also includes in terms of I suppose the more effective application of some of the the new tools or tools that we have not yet applied and also it could very well be you know the implication for areas that are not actually covered by a collaborative approach at the moment so you know I wouldn't directly just take the interpretation that is about new regulatory mechanisms I was just going to say that it it very definitely wasn't intended to be shorthand for regulation it was to illustrate there's a whole range of different things that that might need or could be done which includes many of the things we've touched on about information gaps about incentives and and if you want to make change in any kind of land management you generally need a package of measures and they all need to be aligned whether it's clearer policies about what the priorities are because there are areas where you've got conflicting objectives and that's a challenge to know you know where where is government's priority so that there are a range of different things in terms of guidance support that we would have talked about that we we believe that that term encompasses so we we certainly think that there's more that can be done but we haven't explored that in detail okay thank you we need to wrap this up now but before we do can I ask you on behalf of the committee that there's been reference made today to pieces of research that are being worked up or have been produced it will be useful for the committee as we continue to deliberate the subject to have sight of that could I ask for that information before two weeks today when we have the stakeholders in front of us if that were possible we could certainly make available any information that is currently available to us I mean as you know there are one or two pieces of information that will not be concluded till the new year but whether we currently have that of course it will be made available to you okay appreciate that thank you very much can I thank the witnesses for their attendance today and I'm going to suspend for a short five minute break the SWAT witnesses thank you the third item on the agenda is to take evidence on the crown estate Scotland interim management order 2017 can I welcome the panel of witnesses particularly minister Humza Yousaf and it's your first appearance before this committee as officials David Mallon and Douglas Kerr minister can I ask you to speak to the instrument thank you and good morning convener for thank you for the opportunity to speak to the draft order that has been laid to establish an interim body crown estate Scotland interim management to manage crown estate assets in scotland the cabinet secretary for the environment climate change and land reform wrote to the committee on 21 October setting out the actions that she was taking to prepare for Scotland taking early control of the management and revenues of crown estate assets this is a step we are taking at the earliest opportunity to ensure the early transfer of these assets can be completed the 2016 act provides for establishing an order a body by order in council for the purposes of receiving the functions covered by UK government's transfer schemes the draft order will establish a new body to manage crown estate assets in scotland on an interim basis this needs to happen to ensure that we can progress a smooth transfer as quickly as possible and until the parliament has legislated on the long-term framework marine scotland receives support for the single entity approached outlining the recent consultation on proposals for establishing an interim body post devolution the draft order we're discussing today was finalised as a result of that consultation other specific issues arising from the recent consultation will be considered as part of the forthcoming consultation on what the longer-term arrangements will be the devolution provided for in the scotland act 2016 required the transfer to either the Scottish ministers or a person nominated by them meaning a single transfery it's our intention convener for crown estate scotland interim management to be the body nominated to receive the transfer it is proposed that the body will take up its full powers in april 2017 obviously subject to the UK government completing the transfer through the strategy statutory transfer scheme and the parliament approving the draft order in council crown estate scotland interim management as established by this order will be a body corporate separate from scotland ministers to ensure the body has a fully functioning board there will be a chairing member and up to eight other members appointed by Scottish ministers the order provides that members will need to have relevant skills experience and expertise the intention is for the chair to be in place to assist in the appointment process for the chief executive and other board members prior to the body taking on its function next april the body will be required to operate in a transparent and accountable way that is consistent with the principle of good governance there will be reporting arrangements that are usual for public body an annual report will be laid in this parliament establishing the interim body is of course only the beginning of the transfer journey we plan to initiate a consultation on the options for long-term arrangements and long-term management of crown estate assets in december i'm happy of course now convener to take any questions that the committee may have on the draft order okay thank you minister and let me begin with some questions what um how will the interim body work is it essentially a holding operation or do you envisage it um operating in a way that might be recognizably distinct from what the crown estate has done up until now i think it's a landing platform is is how we might well describe it it needs to be in place of course for that transfer of powers but when we talk about long-term arrangements which will be of course the ethos the nature the principles of that and the structure of that long-term arrangement will be will really reflect the consultation what i would say is that we want to try to get the interim body right from the beginning we want to try to make sure that the principles around it the good governance around it are all correct so that that can hopefully inform the long-term arrangements as well but yes i would describe it as a landing platform but it is important we get it right you know we say interim basis but uh you know we are not going to have the long-term arrangements in place overnight as you'd imagine there is a process to go through not just a consultation but obviously a legislative process to go through thereafter as well so it's important we get it right there's also surely a balance to be struck here between the new chair and the board taking decisions that they need to take not postponing them off into the distance and perhaps committing the successor organisation to causes of action that they might not particularly want to take forward so how will you strike that balance and practice? I think the direction to the to the board will be to to start as we mean to go on now although there'll be an interim body what they do in the interim you know that could well shape how people perceive the devolution of the crown estate assets and importantly those that either benefit or from from the crown estate indeed have the livelihood to do with the crown estate live for residents tenants on the crown estate it'll be important for the interim body to really start as we mean to go on in that so when it comes to the board of course we'll be looking for a mix of relevant expertise and experience bearing in mind that we're going through this transitional period and in terms of priorities for the chair and the board and presumably the development of a corporate plan for the interim body is a uppermost there and and they are kind of to do with do you have any sort of timeframes in mind for delivery of that? Well again it will be for the board to to come up with that clearly we want we have a lot actually from the consultation in terms of principles in terms of what people want to see so some of the principles obviously continuity of business will be right up there but there's also there's a strong element of community input and the opportunity for community input as well in decision making human resource implications of course have to have to be resolved as well when it comes to staff being transferred so all of these issues will of course need to be discussed in fact as soon as we possibly can so that's why the appointment of the chair before April 17 is so important and then of a board thereafter but certainly there's a body of work to be done there shouldn't be any delay in doing that although we are on an interim basis as I say the way this body starts is incredibly incredibly important for the future and the long-term management of the crown estate okay thank you Mark Ruskell yeah thanks I think minister you've already highlighted the important role of communities can you flesh that out in a little bit more detail in terms of how this new body will be working with communities what what what what would be the practical ways that communities can actually input into the workings of this body thank you I think is a very good question I had the pleasure of travelling around a lot of our island communities over over the summer months traveled island communities and all six of our local authorities have islands and have responsibility for island communities and the crown estate came up on many occasions as I traveled and the feeling that there was a disconnect between communities and I think that's really important because we can talk about transfer to local authorities of course the Smith commission was was was quite you know it was it was there in black and white but what we have to do is ensure that communities also have access and input into how the crown estate can work for them and a couple of practical things I would suggest one is the consultation give a very strong steer that communities from communities that they wanted to be involved in community organisations so we'd expect the board and the chief executive to be cognisant and to be aware of that and won't be shy and reminding them of that but I'm sure they will be but the appointment of the board itself also provides opportunities for community interests to be directly represented on and we would encourage the new board to go out not to be stuck in their base and where they may be located in Edinburgh but actually to go out to communities to travel to communities and have that ethos now what other mechanisms might be in place for communities to directly input I wouldn't want to prejudge what the board and the chief executive want to do but fair to say that from my perspective and perhaps importantly from the cabinet secretary's perspective community input into the crown estate even at an interim basis and on an interim basis has to be there from the very beginning and does that relate to the skills and expertise that you'd be looking for the board members to actually have as well that strong community ethos most certainly just about the the maximum size of the board I think you've indicated it's eight but have you actually come down to a to a figure do we know that nine I think I said chair plus okay plus plus eight others would be would be the maximum number and the Scottish Government would appoint chair plus one other that would be the minimum number I wouldn't like to be prescriptive about what we think excuse me would be an ideal number again getting the chair appointed the chief executive appointed chair plus one other and then to for them to to make sure there's a relevant expertise of their and community interests to be represented should be a part of that discussion okay thank you Claudia Beamish thank you convener good morning minister and to you both the previous committee the Iraqi committee had regular engagement in relation to the Crown State in the annual report and I and others raised the issue around the mission statement and the remit and that obviously fits in with the the production of the corporate plan which the convener has already asked about really I'm wondering if you can comment at all on whether there will be the opportunity for a change to the mission statement particularly in view of the points you've made minister in answer to Mark's questions and how that would happen or whether you would see there being any problems with it coming early within relation to an interim body or whether it should be longer term yeah I think it's a good point to make I mean the immediate priority for the chair the board and chief executive excuse me will be continuity of business that will be incredibly important but that has to be informed as you say by a corporate plan by mission statements and all the relevant other documents in terms of do I see any any issue with the mission statement being discussed by an interim chair an interim body an interim board I shouldn't see any issues with that but it is important to say that it is an interim body what happens in the long term really must be informed by consultation by the public we must have it from the public what they want to see is an emission statement ethos principle structure governance of a long term body that really has to be informed by the public so I wouldn't say if there would be and again I'm happy for my officials perhaps to add some some meeting those bones but I wouldn't see a particular conflict for for an interim body to do that it's just important for long term the community and the public have a say in what the ethos should be if I may just add sorry just to add that of course the the legislation in the crown estate act 1961 will remain in terms of the duties that govern how the assets are used but I think you know coming to your question I think there is an opportunity to to you know change how things are done you know it's how rather than what the duty is you know it's about as the minister said previously about you know reaching out to communities and to island communities and and remote communities so that there's a better understanding of the priorities for a local area and then the decisions can still be made in the interim under the existing legislation with with still more understanding of what the implications are and the long term provides opportunities beyond that and I just push you on that to to your understanding there wouldn't be anything in the 61 act that would prevent the mission statement developing a complementary social aspect and and the remit being developed in that way no I wouldn't see anything as conflicting with that given that the 61 acts includes provisions on good management as well as the best consideration okay thank you um Angus MacDonald morning minister you've mentioned the interim body will be we'll take a on its asset management role on the first of April and you've also mentioned the consultation was regard to long term arrangements for the management of the county state um what are your expectations as to how long the interim body will be in place for yeah it's a tricky one because we won't want to be definitive in terms of a timescale for the very obvious reasons that a consultation on the long term arrangements may well of course need further legislation of course Scottish legislation and therefore that has to go through a process as all legislation has to but also there may be other things that are not legislative that we have to ensure that we're incorporating for the long term management that will be informed by the views of the public and those that stakeholders who input to the consultation we say two to three years is the timescale that we see but certainly wouldn't be more definitive than that in terms of the interim arrangements but there certainly won't be any dragging of heels I mean the consultation for a long term arrangements again correct me if I'm wrong but that will be launched next month so we're not waiting long for for looking at the long term arrangements okay that's good to hear in the consultation document the government also indicates that certain specified functions may be retained by the interim interim body in the long term what do you have in mind when you speak about certain specified functions yes I mean I think this goes back to my earlier remarks that it's important to get the interim body right because if we can have good practices procedures and governance then that there's no reason why on a national level long term level excuse me why that can't be replicated on the long term body on the permanent body I should say so it will really be for the the board for the chair for the chief executive to then advise whatever the long term arrangements are whoever in charge of the long term arrangements that actually this worked quite well and these are things that we've learned the lessons that we've learned these are things that we wouldn't recommend that you do and then inform the long term arrangements therefore so it would be it would be a little bit I think it would be premature for me to to suggest what that would be but certainly it shouldn't be that the interim body exists and the long term body isn't informed by any of that experience okay thank you Mr Stewart thank you and good morning minister and Mr Kerr and Mr Mallon I'm very interested in the consultation document minister where it talks about piloting work to be carried out on primarily the three holy island authorities Orkney Shetland and obviously Western Isles could you say a little bit more about that and how minded you are to look at that model particularly around devolution of perhaps marine assets for community organisations such as the Harris trust for example yeah and it's worth saying and reiterating again that in black and white there was a commitment there from the Smith commission about further devolution to island communities and the three local authorities or three holy island communities were were specifically mentioned when I travelled to those local authorities they mentioned crowning state pilots when I had the first meeting of the ministerial group again was mentioned and I have to salute the indefatigibility of the leader of the western Isles council who mentions it just about every opportunity and he's right of course to do that and what I've said to them on each occasion is that we're open-minded to the idea of a pilot there are some obstacles there there's potentially some legislative obstacles if we don't have the full transfer or once we have the full transfer to an interim body there are some discussions that we have to look at particularly when we don't have the long-term arrangements in place but can there be a pilot between the interim and between the long term that's where discussions are at the moment I would say they're moving constructively I think the local authorities will always want to push us to go quicker and to go faster but certainly it's on the agenda whenever we have meetings yeah and I just for record assure your view in the leader of western Isles council on meeting in a couple of hours and could I also raise a wider issue clearly I understand the interaction with kind of states and our islands are future which did focus on the three holy island communities but you know that in past history I think in the first session of parliament previous administrations looked at powers that would help the north mainland of Highland for example their discount scheme didn't apply just to the three island authorities had an elements of a Gailan Bute and Highland and that was very much aid of a social character have you looked at extending these pilots to perhaps the island communities in the Highland Council area and indeed in a Gailan Bute which as you know has considerable island communities such as Sky, Bram, Egg, Muck and of course there's Eila and Jury and Dura and so on in a Gailan Bute I mean appreciate that is beyond our islands are future sure but you would accept that there is specific needs within island communities which obviously Europe appreciates in its various funding packages and this own parliament has reflected in their discount scheme could you have a look at that pilot model as well beyond I think it's fair to say and to give reassurance to the member that every local authority that has responsibility for island communities has mentioned to me the potential of a pilot you know so the six that we talk about that have powers sorry have responsibility for island communities all of them mentioned and that's why for example when I first came into my position as the Minister for Transport and Islands I extended the ministerial working group that was previously just the Holy Island councils but I ensure that islands and islands like island Bute and North Ayrshire were also part of the discussion and yes I fear to say we're looking at it there has been more detail that's come from the three island three island communities holy island communities there may be other requests and more detail that comes from islands and islands like island Bute and North Ayrshire and we'll treat them in exactly the same fashion okay thank you just a couple further questions could just ask you about the discussions you've had with the UK government as far as funding of the body is concerned how is that progressing progressing fair funding and having a fair financial framework is of course essential when it comes to the devolution of any function or any powers fair to say that discussion is on going you know there's an element of staff that have to be transferred as a member probably is aware of and we have to ensure that is done on the same terms and conditions and there's no a principle of no detriment so discussions are certainly on going I've not been aware of any major issues in that financial the member will be aware there's always discussions to and fro back and forth but those discussions are very much on going but we would you know look to do that then and on the principle of fair funding and no detriment to either the Scottish or the UK government and I think all members in the committee are aware that it's crucially important that new bodies are adequately funded so we avoid the the sort of cliched strangles at birth syndrome and we've had obviously current issues around police Scotland but far Scotland about perhaps new setups for hands-on enterprise but you know I'm very sensitive about how important then is it to have adequate funding for the interim body straight away so we don't start with a whole problem of deficit finance and problems with the new chief exec and the board struggling to run the organization because frankly it's underfunded now having spoke to the cabinet secretary she's very committed to ensuring that the body is adequately resourced so as part of the discussion we're having and all I can do at this stage is give the member the assurance that it's part of our thinking part of our discussions and he's absolutely right we want to see that body adequately resourced because you know those transfer of powers are very very important to us so I can give him that assurance and I know something the cabinet secretary is cognising of. My final question that the convener is very familiar with this is you'd be aware as far as crown estate properties are concerned that the tenant liaison group met with the crown estate officials and they were informed and perhaps to confirm if this is accurate or not that on the transfer in April 17 that no cash will be transferred so the whole key issue that I'm concerned about is how the crown estate is actually going to be the individual estate will be funded in order to pay salaries and have day to day running costs apart from having to sell assets and I clearly be aware you don't want unintended consequences of selling agriculture assets that will have a long term consequence for local communities so what is the issues around temporarily loaning funding in order to make sure that these estates are adequately funded? Oh defer to my officials on the specific point I mean what I've been familiar with is very positive discussions being going on with tenants and we've been trying to give reassurance to tenants that their tenancy agreements of course will transfer and there should again be no detriment to that that is the last thing we want we want continuity continuity upon transfer that is the key word and that's why I said to the convener at the beginning of this at continuity is hugely important we'll also there's been a suggestion that the crown estate organises of course workshops to to have a discussion with tenants to agree improvements that may but will be made and other such suggestions and I'm happy to to to suggest to the crown estate board once it's in place that they do that but on the specifics I might if you don't mind I'll ask David to perhaps provide some detail on that. Yes it is true that so far the transfer will not include any share for Scotland of the liquid assets of the crown estate commissioners having said that the the way in which your individual lease agreements are set there will be some of them are paid on an annual basis and some of them will be paid up front so they'll be a pro-rata share for Scotland of the annual lease payments which are due to Scotland that that's the way in which the draft transfer scheme operates that there's a way of you know ensuring that funds for Scotland reach Scotland and if someone inadvertently pays Scotland wrongly they are sent in the other direction. So let's just think of a scenario it's it's May 2017 you're running a crown estate where are you going how are you going to pay the wages and running costs of that estate? That will be through leases that are paid from the point of first of April but also the transfer in advance of the first of April of the pro-rata share of lease charges which are paid to the crown estate commissioners and some of which is due to the Scottish body. And is there a provision for Scottish Government loaning funds to the estates so they don't have to sell off vital assets to pay running costs themselves? Yes the the Order and Council that is before us today does include the proposal that does an ability by Scottish ministers to provide either a loan to the new body or grant to the new body but we would see that as being you know something that's there to ensure that that can happen if it needs to happen but so far we don't think that is that is necessary and that would be enacted effectively when that if this order goes through today there's nothing else no other legislative actions have to be carried out to ensure that this loan facility is enacted. The from here if as you say it goes through today there would then need to be obviously the Order and Council completed by the the Privy Council but but yes yeah but that's normally quite quick isn't it right yes well we hope so thank you i think that that answers it thank you can be on thank you um one question i'd like to ask um i think you're aware of mr mallan because we've discussed this previously is there are suggestions emanating from the tenant farmers of the crown estate that there may be a backlog of repair work on their agricultural holdings i'm just which the Scottish Government would then inherit the responsibility for addressing with the financial implications that might have i'm just wondering has any work been done to identify whether there is such a backlog and if so the scale of it we've had some discussions with the crown estate in light of previous you know um engagement with with the committee um they have assured us that they have maintained their investment in scotland during that period of uncertainty over the last few years on what the the ultimate set of arrangements would be for scotland but but nevertheless you know our discussions with stakeholder representatives through the stakeholder advisory group has identified that there may be a need for cross subsidy between different parts of the estate so that is something that we're actively looking at to best ensure that investment that needs to be undertaken can be undertaken okay Claudia Beamish thank you very much would it be appropriate to in view of visits that we've engaged in as a committee to to have dialogue with the tenants themselves as well as the crown estate on on that issue of of any backlog yes i think i suppose it's not really for me to say but i would probably advise engaging with NFUS and the Scottish tenant farmers association although having said that i'm aware that the four estate the four rural estates tenants have nominated their own representatives so i think one of those options would be would be entirely possible and and appropriate in my view but i guess the committee has to form that view itself thank you david stewart oh just computer i take the minister back to the point that was raising about island communities and apologies for jumping back in an earlier aspect i mean is minister aware of the the japanese island development act which legally inspired the status i want to make sure the minister's earning is core in computer which inspired basically the distinct nature of islands in japan which clearly is something useful for our debate on thursday but it's distinctly important about powers and obviously crown estate and islands are crucially important because this gave a legal status to islands which are vitally important if not perhaps the minister referred to it on thursday in the debate well the member has been called the font of all knowledge i know before and he's just adequately demonstrated why i will give him an undertaking to look at the act that he refers to before the debate on thursday i'm always looking to see how we can strengthen devolution of powers and functions to local authorities but particularly to island communities and if there's a blueprint there in japan of course we have looked to towards for devolution comparisons before then we shouldn't be shy in doing that again and apologies for the swatter point no no i did not give it that description at all but i will happily look at the piece of legislation in advance of thursday's debate okay thank you minister is any other members got questions alexander born geography closer to home and on the location on the on the offices i just wonder is that causing any concern with hiring of staff when it's up for review and whether the minister could give any update on the location of the interim and the final offices and whether there were any barriers to it being outside of edinburgh obviously good transportation links permitting no there haven't been any questions that have been raised thus far in terms of this location but i think the ethos for us will be very much that the board the chief exec but hopefully also the staff move around the country that they get out to rural parts of scotland they get out to the islands and have that engagement i think one of the common criticism i've i've heard is that there seems to be a disengagement between the crown estate management in the past and and perhaps getting down to the crash it's not all of them at all and i certainly don't want to to to make that over generalisation but this has been a bit of a disconnect and a bit of a distance and our real uh you know the push from governments and the government will be to get out there not just to be stuck in their offices here in the central belt the suggestion is that um the offices could be located in inverness but that meetings could also take place across the highlands and islands is there a commitment to make sure that meetings are held in in rural areas of the highlands and islands which would contribute to engaging with communities yes i mean i think that idea and the suggestion from from mr burnett are absolutely correct i think you know meetings being held outside of edinburgh uh it should be should happen should occur of course it's for the board to make that decision but certainly again the the advice from Scottish ministers in terms of the ethos that the board should have should be that they travel around the country and hold the meetings in terms of the actual location it should hopefully remind it that the current lease limits opportunities the lease limits opportunities for the location in the short term so there's a lease that's in place and therefore uh that obviously will have a limit now we are going to consult on the longer term arrangements and again that might be a general theme that comes in the longer term arrangements it will have to look at where the lease is at that point etc etc but certainly the interim body should hold meetings outside of edinburgh that will be that would be certainly our preference and i'm sure there'll be other members will be looking for meetings to be held in the south west of scotland as well thank you minister um we now move to agenda item four today which is consideration of motion s 5 m 0 2 3 9 9 that the environment climate change and land reform committee recommends that the crown estate scotland interim management order 2017 draft be approved can i invite the minister to speak to and move the motion yes i move the motion thank you can i ask if any members have any desire to speak no okay can you wind up minister i'm just pleased that you have moved to the order and uh or that the order i hope will will be moved as i say it's important for us to get these interim arrangements correct and look forward to the constitution and the input from the committee on the long-term arrangements for the future thank you minister the question is that motion s 5 m 0 2 3 9 9 in the name of rosanna cunningham be approved are we all agreed we are agreed thank you very much for your time minister at its next meeting on 29 November the committee will carry out a pre-appointment public hearing with proposed scotland commissioners as agreed earlier we will now move into private session and i ask that the public gallery be cleared as the public part of the meeting is now closed