 Mae'r 30 oes o fynd yn 2017 o'r Econymau Rhaid-Fertyd i'r Cymru. Felly, rydw i'n dechrau'n gwneud i'w chweithio sy'n rhaid i'w'r yncor o'r rhaid i'w'r rhaid o'r ffordd oedd o'r ffordd o'i rhaid i'w'r bysiau. Fy oedd yn ni'n gwneud i'r cyllid, ac nid amgylch chi'n myfyrddio yma i gondol ym 1 o'r ffordd o'r ysgol. Mae'n ddod y cyfnodau sy'n cyflwyneid o'r ysgol. I would like to welcome Aiden Smith, the head of planning and development, Scottish Environment Link, and Kathy Tilbrough, head of coastal and marine ecosystems, Scottish Natural Heritage. Good morning. We have some questions for you. Have you given evidence at a committee before, both of you? So you know you don't need to touch the buttons and if you catch my eye I will try and bring you in at the right moment so you get a chance to answer all the questions. The first question is going to be from the deputy convener, Gail Ross. Thank you, convener. Good morning. Thank you for coming along. Just overall, do you think that the intent of the bill is in line with expectations? Kathy, you nodded. That means you've got the answer. Kathy, you first and then Aiden. Well, I'd first like to say that SNH certainly supports the aspiration and intent of the bill to help island communities achieve their aims for the future. I just wanted to also say that from our perspective we feel islands are such an important distinctive part of Scotland's natural and cultural heritage and so it's very important that we make sure that we safeguard the assets that island communities depend on, so we feel that's a very important part of this bill which maybe hasn't been dwelled on too much yet. I think there are aspects of the bill that could be clarified to better achieve the stated aims and we touched on some of that in our written evidence and largely that relates to the marine licensing provisions, so I don't know if you want me to expand just now. No, it's not at the moment because we'll be definitely coming to that. We have some views on how that could perhaps be clarified to strengthen the achievement of the aims of the bill. Aiden, do you want to read it on? Likewise, I agree with Kathy there. We welcome the bill as well. I think that it's got a lot of potential to coordinate a range of issues in terms of the islands, but perhaps maybe a bit surprising that the natural heritage value of Scotland's islands hasn't explicitly recognised within the bill, given that that is one of the really key things that Scotland's islands are particularly important for and well recognised for both within the islands and beyond. And then the other kind of high-level thing I guess that perhaps we were a bit surprised about is the real focus on populated islands, inhabited islands only. A lot of Scotland's island communities are kind of intrinsically connected with uninhabited islands as well, so their focus on inhabited islands is maybe a bit surprising. We'd like to see it broadened out to include consideration of uninhabited islands as well. Do you feel that it will go into the inhabited island side? I think that we're going to touch on the uninhabited islands later on. Do you think that it will lead to greater empowerment of island communities? Certainly, I think that it could do. Yes, absolutely. It gives specific recognition of the unique circumstances that there can be on island communities and in island places, if you like. So it's got potential to do that, certainly. I guess a lot of the detail will be where the real difference is made, though. Yes, I would echo that. I think that some of our views are that there are quite a number of existing provisions, some of which haven't really yet bedded in, that would also help to achieve the aims of the bill in terms of marine planning, the Community Empowerment Act and some of those other tools that are there. We're quite keen to just see how we make sure that this bill adds value to those and we make sure that they're properly integrated with those other provisions. Raida, did you want to come in on that? Could I please, really, to Cathy? Do you see powers that are held by SNH at the moment that could be devolved to islands? I quite often hear from islands that there are things that they feel are being done to them, especially environmentally, rather than with them and disregarding, I guess, the knowledge that they already have and some of those options have proved detrimental. Well, I'm disappointed to hear that feedback and certainly we are very keen to consider how we can better meet the requirements of the Community Empowerment Act and work with communities to involve them much more in decisions about things like protected area management. We're doing a lot of work on that at the moment and we are looking at pilot studies to see how we can involve, for example, local authorities and local communities in the management of marine protected areas. I think that the feedback from our recent consultation on marine protected areas around Scotland was actually quite good that we did make a real effort to talk to communities, to involve them, and certainly the feedback from a number of stakeholders was that that process had been much more effective in Scotland than it had south of the border, but I know that there are issues and, obviously, we want to work to strengthen that relationship with local communities, so I'm very pleased to try to do more on that. On a similar point, the thing is that a lot of Scotland's island communities are custodians, if you like, of some of the best bits of Scotland's natural environment, so there's absolutely no doubt about that at all. There is an obligation on island communities often to look after that in a way that benefits the people on the islands but benefits people beyond that as well, because the significance of those areas sometimes is such that it's something that is of value to visitors and people across Scotland and beyond. There is a bit of a need for communities perhaps to be helped out a little bit, perhaps, on how they can manage those, but there certainly does need to be a certainty that there's going to be a minimum standard of protection for that natural environment and that local communities are given the assistance to help manage them in a way that is required. They would argue that those things are in place because they have, through history, looked after them, and it seems that they take it a bit tough that people come in and tell them how they should be doing what they have very obviously already been doing and then impose upon them what they see as nonsensical regulation. Is there a way that they could be used to—some of this could be devolved to them—that they identify those features that they, through local knowledge, know how to look after them and that those designations could be handed down to islands? I think that we're looking at that and we're looking at ways that that could be made to happen, but obviously with designations, particularly at the moment with the European level of designations, there are quite strict rules about how you go through the process of selection and there are quite a lot of technical issues involved. That's not to say that local communities with help couldn't be a major part of that process, it's just working out how best that could be achieved. We need to pilot that and test it and see how best we could manage to work side by side with communities more effectively. Absolutely, I agree with that. It's about how we can enable and assist island communities to continue a lot of the good work that they've been doing. Perhaps a good example of that might be things like the macher habitats on the Western Isles and on the US, which have been managed with support from Scotland and the UK and from Europe. As we move forward, if Scotland's place in Europe changes, we'll need to think about how we can keep that support going. That will be critical. It's a really famous habitat. It's something that's valued both on the islands and beyond. Maintaining that thing and helping local island communities to be able to maintain that in the future will be critical. I think that we'll move on to the next section. John, that's you. Thanks, convener. Mr Smith has already raised an issue that I was going to ask about. I'll ask you about it anyway. In the clause section 3, it talks about the national islands plan that specifically says objectives and strategy of the Scottish ministers in relation to proving outcomes for island communities. That suggests that the islands plan will totally ignore islands that are not inhabited, such as St Kilda. What are your thoughts on that? Should we have an alternative wording if we should change something in the bill in relation to that? St Kilda is a good example of things where there are strong cultural links to existing inhabited islands. We feel that, particularly given the nature of the interconnectedness of both cultural and natural heritage of the islands, it draws a bit of a false boundary around inhabited islands. We would like to see that broadened out to cover all islands. I think that that would be the simple way of doing it would be for it to consider all islands. I suppose that the slight danger would be that communities would then get undervalued if we would just look at the islands. If we said, for example, that improving outcomes for islands and drop the communities, that might be a bit of a problem. I am not asking you nicely to rewrite the bill right now, but if we said islands and island communities, would that be one answer? Sure. I think that it's just about not drawing boundaries too tightly. St Kilda mentioned is a great example where there is a long-standing cultural and environmental connection between the western isles and the main bit of the western isles, if you like, in St Kilda, and to draw an artificial boundary around inhabited islands only. It seems to be against the spirit of what is trying to be achieved. I think that we felt that the uninhabited islands would probably be picked up geographically in terms of the plan by the area coverage of the national islands plan, but the focus of the bill was much more on communities and the challenges that they faced. We probably felt that uninhabited islands and the requirements for those would be picked up more by general planning measures and things like the marine plans, the regional marine plans, as they come along. I take on board Aidan's points there and something would be interested to look at further. If we are widening it out now to the whole question of the plan, there is really nothing in the bill about what should be in the plan. That is a subject that we have discussed quite a lot on the islands as well as here in the committee. You have already mentioned the natural heritage and that is the conveyor that you are involved in. Another suggestion has been the population that we should specifically say in the bill that we want to raise or stabilise or halt the decline of population. What is your feeling about that? Should we have more in the bill about the plan or do we just leave it to see what comes up in the plan? I will get to that, because that is a logical way—sorry, Aidan. The plan would be the logical place to address some of those issues. If it was stated in the bill that the plan should specifically pick up those issues, that would be one of the simpler ways of amending the bill to ensure that it was covered. We would certainly be supportive of something that required the plan to specifically address natural heritage issues, for instance. That could be a way forward. The kind of counterargument—if I can just throw that in just now—is that if you put something in, then anything that you do not put in might feel that it was undervalued. If we would say natural heritage, population, transport, health and education, then something else might feel that it was undervalued. Do you think that there is a risk of that? Possibly. I guess that the way that we would hope that the plan would work would be to act as a kind of co-ordinating mechanism across other areas of government policymaking, which are already out there. The primary benefit, I suppose, that it could bring is to co-ordinate that and make sure that there is a single place where those things are considered from an island's perspective. Thinking back again to what is special about the islands, of course it is the island communities, but it is also the natural heritage and the cultural heritage of the islands as well. For those who are potentially not to be addressed in a plan, it would seem to be a bit of a missed opportunity. I will let you come in here and I will maybe let you have one more question. I would like to come in. I think that our view would be that maybe the bill does not need to be that prescriptive about what is in the plan. I think that there are high-level statements about co-ordinating and focusing in on what is special and distinctive about the challenges of living on an island or facing island communities. It is that kind of high-level steer that needs to be in the bill and then perhaps the detail will follow in the plan itself. I would just come back to what you talked about, the population issues and the sustainability of island communities. Again, it would be to stress that so many of those island communities are very dependent on their natural resources and their surrounding seas. For us, the sustainability of those island communities goes hand-in-hand with having a healthy environment. If I may, having read SNH's submission, it was very much that there should be a strategic plan. We have wrestled with the evidence that we have been hearing. Some of the islands with stronger communities believe that they should have their own plan. Some people believe that islands with island groups are very different to the rest of the island group. It appears that some would like their own plan and feel that they should have their own plan for each and every island, and some do not. Do you think that the bill balances that and SNH balances it by saying that it should be strategic, or do you think that local people are going to feel marginalised? Again, the difficulty here is that we are not yet, at the point, with other systems such as the marine planning system and community planning, perhaps, of getting down to that level of detail where local communities feel that they have a valid input into planning for their local area. I do not think that this is the place to do that. The islands plan is very much about pulling out the issues that are common to the challenges of islands in terms of service delivery and things like that. On planning for the detail of particular communities, particular islands, we should be using the existing planning process for that. Unfortunately, those systems are not yet well developed enough, I think, for people to see the benefits of those. I think that it will take time for those systems to bed down. I see the islands bill as being something higher that feeds into those other strategic plans and says, do not forget to focus on those issues across the board. I agree with that. There are existing mechanisms under the Marine Act to produce regional marine plans. The terrestrial land use planning system has got flexibility in terms of the area that is covered by development plans. The land use strategy has also got potential to provide a bit of a hook for thinking about wider land use. Those three areas are perhaps better for setting a vision for local places, whether that is a marine area or a terrestrial area. Perhaps that is more about the issues that are in common across island groupings. We are going to move on to the next section, Mike. That is you. I am going to focus on the issue of the shorthand recalling island proofing. My questions really are directed in this section to Cathy as a representative of SNH. SNH is number 28 in the public bodies that I mentioned in the bill. The bill is saying that relevant authorities like SNH must have regard to island communities and must prepare an island community impact assessment in relation to policy, strategy and service. In your written evidence to us, you say that SNH has a balancing duty already through the Natural Heritage 1991 act, requiring us to take account of the interests of local communities. Rather than an additional process, we would prefer to adapt our internal approach to this duty to meet any new requirements. What you are saying to us in your written evidence is that you actually do that already. Is that right? I would hope that we do. We need to really look at it carefully to see whether there are any aspects that would be tightened up. I think that a national islands plan would help with that in terms of highlighting the kind of issues that we need to always remind ourselves of. What we were really saying there, we would obviously still comply with the terms of the guidance in terms of how we report on that, how we make sure that we are monitoring properly what we are doing. However, I think that we just felt that it was more efficient to amend an existing process and just make sure that we are covering this new duty, new requirement, rather than having another parallel sort of process. My question runs very much from what you just said. In that case, how do you do it at the moment? How do you island proof your policies and strategies and plans? The worry, the island is that we have spoken to on the islands, on various islands, is that they want to avoid public authorities, sitting in Edinburgh, Glasgow, wherever they are, to avoid a situation where you have a tick box exercise and that they feel consultation is extremely important. I know in your written evidence that you said also that your system is simple and quick to apply, including any consultation requirements, but that sort of implies that you are not sure whether consultation is important, whereas that is not what we are getting back from the islanders. Sure. Dialogue and communication are really important. I do not know whether there is going to be a requirement for formal consultation and if there is, certainly we would make sure that we do that, but it is important to remember that we have locally based staff in a lot of the island groups. They are in daily discussion with their local authority colleagues, with communities, and I think that they are in a good position. They do this to flag up if there is some sort of proposal for a new policy or a new plan that they think will be detrimental to their local patch. They are immediately in touch to make sure that we amend that, but we need to make sure that that perhaps is a bit more of a rigorous, monitored approach in order to meet the duty. However, I would say that we certainly are trying to do that already. I referred to the NPA consultation earlier. Part of our early work on that was working out which locations we needed to go to, including most of those islands that were directly affected by the proposals to actually sit down and talk to people locally about those. The key thing is having an early screening process so that you make sure that you are focusing on the most relevant policies and plans, and then you are in a position to influence those before they get too advanced, because I think that there is a danger with all of these things that you leave it to the end, and then you fill out the box to see if you have island proofed. It is too late by that point. You need to do it right from the early stage and make sure that you have thought about island issues or the issues of other remote mainland communities as well as you develop your proposal. What you are saying to us is that your system is good and that you feel that there is a proper consultation and you have a process. Do you think that the islanders feel that? I mean, I know that you are saying that you are talking to your staff on the islands or working on the islands, but that is within your organisation. Are you sure that the people that are living on the islands recognise that this is the process that you are going through? I think that we probably need to do a bit more to check that that is the case, and I am sure that there are things that we can do to strengthen that process. I am not saying that we have a perfect process at the moment, but I think that there are ways that we can build on it rather than having to come up with something completely brand new. Do you think that there are any budgetary concerns regarding the requirements in the bill that you might be concerned about? What do you feel? For that one, it is just about allowing time and all of these issues to do with making sure that you are working with communities that involve maybe a bit more time, but hopefully you end up with a better solution at the end of it, so I think that it is time that we need to spend. I just wanted to clarify. You do not think that whatever happens when it is island-proofing or having a regarding it, you do not think that there should be a prescriptive system for everybody because you feel that SNH basically does it already, and you do not want—I mean, you are interpreting it correctly. I think that guidance would be helpful, so guidance about the screening process, and then I think that there is sort of some detail in the bill about the reporting. But I think that it is not particularly clear who would make that judgment on whether you violin-proofed effectively. So again, if there is going to be some—it might be helpful to have some clarity on that. Who is policing it? Cathy, can I—sorry, my—just a quick question, and for the avoidance of doubt, I am going to declare an interest. I do not think that it is relevant, but I am part of a farming partnership. My question is, is the budgetary concern—sometimes it costs more to do things on islands than it does on the mainland, and some of your grant schemes may have financial implications if you are going to make them suitable for islands, which might require more money than the mainland. Is that a concern for SNH? To be honest, I do not know whether we have specifically looked at that aspect in terms of funding streams. I think that we would probably just consider an application for funding that included those additional costs and take them on board, and that is valid. I cannot see that we would be discriminating on that basis. And as I say, we have got a lot of staff based on islands, and obviously we factor in the cost of travel, and we are very aware of those additional costs of working and living on islands. It is not something that we are unaware of. We will move on to the next section of our meeting, which will be John Finlay, and to give Cathy a break, because that was fairly intensive for her, sort of warning Aiden now that you will be the first one up to answer this. Thank you, Gavina. Good morning, panel. It is a question about marine development. The bill introduces regulation-making power and respect of that. Do you agree with those powers, and how do you think that they could be used? Yes, I agree with them in principle. I guess that the only concern, possibly, is whether it would result in additional effort and resources being required in terms of the way that they are managed. It is good to introduce potentially a clear ability for island communities to get involved, but it is not entirely clear how that would relate to existing powers under marine licensing and how the two systems would work together without causing duplication of effort from consultees and so on. There is a bit more detail that maybe needs to come out there. You mentioned existing powers. Cathy, you talked about fuller use of existing powers. I think that our view is that we strongly agree that island communities and authorities should have a stronger role in determining the use of their surrounding seas. I think that our concern about the proposal in the bill is that the local licensing system would add to the existing national licensing process that Marine Scotland operates. As Aidan said, this risks putting an extra burden on developers, regulators and statutory advisers like ourselves as well as communities. It might be quite a limited opportunity to influence the outcomes in terms of what power the local system has to influence. Our preference would be to formally increase the influence of island authorities and island communities on the existing licensing process and to introduce a much stronger requirement for national and local authorities to work closely together. That can be done under the existing regime. We have good examples. A colleague of mine was telling me about a case in Aberdeen Harbour where Marine Scotland had the licensing authority, but they brought in the local authority, Transport Scotland in terms of the port and other interests to make sure that the proposal was well put together right from the start. The other thing that I mentioned earlier that is relevant here is the new system of marine planning, which has not yet been properly rolled out around Scotland's coasts and islands. The regional marine plans, as they become developed, which should be put together by a group of local stakeholders and with community input, should set the strategic vision for your surrounding seas. The licensing decisions should follow that plan in a plan-led way, as we do generally on land. The provision of the Marine Scotland Act is that the local authority and the regional marine planning partnership would then be a statutory consultee on the marine licensing decisions within that regional plan area. That provision, once we have those regional marine plans in place, gives quite a lot of power and influence to the local authorities and their local communities, but we are not quite there yet. We need to introduce perhaps dual parallel licensing systems that may not be that well integrated. We need to think more about how we can get proper influence into the national system, which is important to have a national system, because it provides that consistency and clear steer for developers. I want to add a quick point on the importance of regional marine planning. That should provide the framework for individual project consenting. It allows things to be considered in a co-ordinated way, and it allows for full consultation on the vision for a local area of sea. There is some good work happening on regional marine planning. Shetland is doing some really good stuff, but elsewhere things are a bit slower. It is important to get the planning system sorted out, perhaps even in advance of the licence system being adapted, so that we are able to make decisions in that framework of what everything wants to look like with a wider vision. I will ask how that would differ in practice from the provision set out in the Orkney and Zetland acts, but I will push you a bit more. The perception is that that is devolving, but you are suggesting that this is supplementing or putting in addition? Yes. The policy memorandum makes it clear that that would sit in addition to the existing national marine licensing scheme in much the same way that works licences in Shetland operate at the moment. In Shetland, there has been a recognition that that process of having the works licence ability has provided influence for the local authority. It does allow them to have a say in that national process, but I do not think that you necessarily need that parallel licensing process to achieve that. I think that it would be very useful, and we have suggested that in our evidence, to do some work to see what the effects of the Shetland approach have been and what developers think of that and whether there are better ways to achieve the objectives of having local influence in the licensing process, which is really what we want to see. If there is duplication, does the potential exist to lose the central element of it and retain the local development? I think that that would be quite difficult as well. We are still at quite an early stage in terms of, as we said, marine planning. Even the marine licensing system has not been in place for that long. We are still learning lessons. We have very innovative development activity in our seas, particularly in relation to marine renewables. It would be very hard for individual local authorities and regional planning authorities to deal with that without some kind of national overview. I think that it is better to stick to the national system but to make sure that there is proper local influence into that system, at least for now, at least until we get to a more mature stage. John Finch-Eden, in the Stuart's got a question. Maybe I could come back to you in a minute. Actually, I just agree with Kathy there. I think that that was very well made. Yep, that point is good. Stuart, do you want to come in and then I'll come back to you, John? Thanks, convener. I just wanted, in the narrow instance of Shetland, where there are related powers that fishing interests have, which are outwith the scope of that, that appear to operate very successfully. That is my view, it may not be your view. I just want to know how that relates to planning delegation, because there is an interaction between local exploitation of natural resources and planning developments arising from planning. I would come from a position that the more communities control natural resources in a sustainable way, and the need for that to interact with it, that would be good news, but you are saying something that is different from that. So, specifically in Shetland, from what knowledge you may have of the control of natural resources that is specifically available in Shetland but not elsewhere, do you think that that gives us a model that we could implement elsewhere? Or is it something that might just be particular to island groups rather than more generally coastal groups? No, sorry, did you want to? It shouldn't be specific to Shetland. I think that the provision there is the use of a regulating order. It's not related to the licensing system, it's separate from that. I think that we would certainly encourage that to be maybe worked on by inshaw fisheries groups elsewhere to come up with sustainable ways of managing their local resource, and again, sounding a bit like a broken record, but the links into marine planning to try to make sure that fisheries management is well coordinated with all the other activities that are going on in that area of sea, and for local communities to have a say in all of that. That's not going to be addressed by any licensing provision. Again, RSPB mentioned that in their evidence, there's some confusion in the terms in the bill about the way that licensing the activities that could be licensed under this bill are a bit different from the Marine Scotland Act. For example, placing of materials or pontoons and things like that, I don't think, is covered by the wording of this bill. Again, there's a bit of confusion about how the two systems might sit together. Just briefly, then, and I would come from this position that the exploitation of the natural resources should be the paramount consideration. Are you suggesting that it should be the secondary one that's secondary to planning? Not in any way saying it should be secondary. I'm just saying that I don't think there's any suggestion that we would be bringing fisheries management under a formal marine licensing system, but we need to make sure that the mechanisms that are in place for managing fisheries are well-coordinated with other activities through planning. Back with a supplementary, and I'll bring Aiden and Kathy in, and then we'll move on to the next one. Well, Stuart and Parter has touched on that, and it is any potential deficiencies, because picking up on comments that Macaulay wrote to me earlier on, the perception of suits in Edinburgh making decisions, you know, I get that everyone has to be part of, I have wider obligations than beyond the immediate community, but the whole ethos of this bill, as we're told, is about pushing power down. I'm wondering, is marine development something that should be specifically mentioned in the plan or any linkages with that? Certainly, I wouldn't be supportive of everyone operating as an island in their own as regards all the protections that are already there, and finally, if I may just throw in Brexit any implications that you see from that, please. And then we'll move on to Jenny. Yes, so I think that point maybe highlights the risks of things getting considered in isolation when actually they're interconnected. And I guess we saw one of the potentially big benefits of an island's plan as being bringing those different sectors together a little bit. So terrestrial planning, for instance, is considered separately from marine planning, and then resource use is considered separately again. If we've got something which allows us to kind of think about those in a co-ordinated way at a strategic level, that could help co-ordinate things and kind of set a bit of a vision for how we want to make things more sustainable, both sea and on land, because there is no doubt that there's connection between things and the fisheries activity is perhaps a good example. I think that that would also make things more robust if and when we do get into a situation where the framework that we've currently got from Europe changes if we're able to kind of have something in place which kind of provides that strategic framework, that could be quite helpful. Kathy, do you want to come in and then I'll move to Jamie? I don't think I've really got anything to add to what Aiden said there. Okay, Jamie, yours is the next question. Thank you, convener, and good morning panel. I might just press a little bit further on some of the points that John was making and for the benefit, perhaps of the record. Can you clarify if you think that the provisions for the creation of the new marine licences in this bill should be in the bill or not? I'm a little bit confused. I hear probably for the first time in these evidence sessions, perhaps some negativity towards the potential outcome or the implication of what this might cause. Do you think that we should do under existing powers such as the Community Power Act or the Marine Scotland Act, or is there a requirement to do it in this bill? I'm not an expert on how you would make the changes, but I do think that rather than the bill setting out proposals for a completely separate new licensing provision, perhaps the bill could make amendments to the Marine Scotland Act to allow for that important influence from local communities and local authorities. Obviously, I'm not an expert on the best mechanism to achieve that. I'm not sure about timescales and things, but a reflection on the lessons from the Shetland experience would be helpful to inform that as well. Maiden, do you want to say anything on that? So, not really much to add to that. I think that we're supportive of the principle of giving island communities the ability to influence individual project consenting decisions, but it's just that concern about the additional level of work that might be required. Maybe seeing how we can be a bit clearer about how we link the two systems together to make sure that they're better connected to avoid duplication and make sure that we can have a bit of an efficient system as possible. When you say that you have nothing to add, are you in agreement that, as it currently stands, the bill creates a new layer that is unnecessary and, instead, it should be beefing up existing regulations and licensing powers? Well, it's a slightly different thing, I think, so it is giving a specific responsibility to island communities, but that is in addition, I guess, to the national consenting regime that is there at the moment. For a consultation body, whether that's a statutory consultation body or a non-statuary consultation body, it's just making sure that we can have a one-point-of-contact, if you like, to make sure that those decisions can be made in a co-ordinated way without an authority having to respond to the two different systems. Okay. And how far do you think down the chain this empowerment should go? So, for example, I believe, as it currently stands, local authorities will apply to ministers for the power to give licences to persons who apply for them, but some representation we've had, certainly at community levels, feel that this should be even further devolution of that. I guess John Finnie's point was that this bill is to empower islands more. Do you think that the local authorities is the right place for these new licences and powers to live, given that they do not currently hold that expertise or power? In practical terms, how could it work? How should local communities have a bigger say in the issuing of licences for the development purposes? I'm going to bring Aiden in, if I may, and then I'd like to take a question from Peter, and then give Cathy a chance to come in and say, Aiden, if you'd like to start on that. So, I guess we don't really have a view as to which level the power should sit, but the critical thing is that the decision-making body, if you like, has access to the specialist advice that's required and are adequately resourced to deal with that. Development decision-making can be complicated and result in quite significant changes, particularly to natural environment, but also to communities themselves as well. Having access to particularly specialist advice would be the most important thing. Peter, do you want to come in? Yes, thanks, convener, and good morning, folks. The bill allows local authorities to decide whether they want to take up these powers or not. Obviously, there is a chance that some will and some won't, and that will lead inevitably to some inconsistency and possibly some confusion as to what rules and regulations there are out there. Given that that is the situation, do you feel that that is a correct decision to allow the authorities to decide or not? If you don't think that that freedom should be allowed, should there be more of a national licensing scheme so that we have consistency across the board in regards to these powers? Kathy, that's coming to you. Okay. To be honest, we have the national system, and I think that the devil is in how we make sure that we get effective local influence. Coming back to the previous question, it is about how, even if local authorities are having that influence into the licensing decision process, how do you make sure that communities have a voice in that? I don't want to pass the buck, but I think that that's a question for local authorities to really carefully consider how they achieve that. I'll go back again to the marine planning process, where, as I say, the marine planning partnerships, which should be very inclusive, would be a statutory consultee on licensing, so they would have a say on those national licensing decisions. It is about making sure that we end up with a process where not just the quite limited powers and provisions that are talked about in terms of being devolved in this bill, but also decisions that are being taken by, on a reserved basis, about oil and gas or about defence-type issues, that there is some sort of local input to those decisions as well. We need to make sure that whatever provision we end up with covers the broad range of issues that local communities will want to try to influence and not just quite a narrow range of things. I take your point that there will be potentially some inconsistency, particularly in relation to, in the bill, it also talks about not just some authorities might take this up and some local authorities might not, but also flexibility about which types of activities they might want to include and which would be exempt. Again, another layer of potential difference and possible confusion, so I think that there are quite a lot of issues here to be unpacked. I'm actually going to bring Fulton in here because his question builds on that, so I'd like to bring him in and then I'm going to move to Richard. Thanks, convener. My question is what we've been focusing on over the last few bit, but I suppose I'd be interested to think what both the panel members think about. If you think that local people have enough say on what goes on in their water or where does a balance lie, if you don't, how much more I think they should have. Aidan, do you want to go with that to start with? Well, the bill is proposed at the moment would certainly add some extra opportunities for local people to have a say in some development decisions which are happening in local waters, so that seems to be a kind of positive thing in terms of local engagement. I guess the thing is that I would maybe come back to some of the comments that I made earlier on, which is particularly important with regard to Scotland's island communities, where the natural environment is of particularly high value to island communities, but it's of value to others beyond the island communities as well, so it's important to that others beyond the islands are also able to have a little bit of an input into decision making as well. Again, I don't have a lot to add to what Aidan said. We definitely think that there is a need and a real opportunity to increase the current level of influence that local communities currently have to that sort of decision making on what happens on their island and in their surrounding seas, so we do need to try to make sure that at the end of this process we have a more effective way of doing that, but it's all just about what is the best way to achieve that, what's the best way to make that happen, partly by making better use of existing provisions as well as anything that we might want to add. At the risk of putting you on the spot, are you able to give me a practical example of how that might work, what you're saying in practice, how it might work either through a local authority situation or a community council or whatever example? I'm delighted if you'd like to give us an example, and I will excuse you and say that I think it would be relevant to have it, but I'm very happy if you'd like to write the example and send it in if you don't have one that's particularly relevant that we could look at or discuss just now. So the options there. I quite like to reflect on it actually. I probably would only be able to give you sort of more hypothetical examples, so it would be good to go and talk to colleagues about a good example to feedback to you if that's okay. Okay, I appreciate that, thank you. That'd be fine, and if I'd just reiterate, if you could send that to the clerks and then it can get round to all of you. The next question is Richard. Yes, good morning and thank you, convener. Basically, you spoke earlier about what your organisations have been doing, but I would like to press you more and ask what role do you think your organisation can play in the future marine development in the Garstyr smell? Aidan, do you want to lead with that? Well, so I guess here today representing Scottish Environment 9, can Irish be Scotland, so we are a non-statutory body as far as engaging in these processes goes. I think the key area where we can get involved is that we do have across the link organisations some areas of expertise in this and we represent our in terms of specialist technical knowledge often, but often we represent communities of interest, so I mentioned a few times that the Scottish Islands are of particularly high natural heritage and cultural heritage importance, and many members of link organisations know the islands very well and love the environment there and are keen to see it protected and enhanced, and are keen to see local communities rewarded for managing that, so I think that we can provide input in terms of specialist advice, technical advice sometimes, but also in terms of the views of our membership and what they think about the direction of travel. I think again our role in the in the marine licensing process is very much as a statutory advisor to the regulators, to the decision makers, so I guess thinking about how we might provide our role in a way that is helpful to communities, maybe I think we already do this to some extent, but you know engaging in dialogue at the local level about the sort of you know developments decisions that we're maybe advising on, particularly perhaps to share and try and explain the kind of issues that we're advising on, so being you know perhaps a little bit more transparent or or being trying to explain in a way that is accessible to people why we might be making certain comments in relation to some types of development activity. I think we're trying to do that, but maybe we could be doing that better, but our role very much is providing advice into the process rather than making the final decisions on licensing. I would actually see this bill as a bonanza for both your organisations because of the expertise that you have and you know you could actually sit down with people locally in order to bring forward your you know and develop it, so from that what would be your understanding of how the new licensing scheme may interact with current legislation and do you foresee any issues? I would agree that there's a definitely going to be additional opportunities to engage with the local folk, which is great. I think there will be opportunities as well perhaps for perhaps maybe both our organisations to bring examples of the way good practice has worked elsewhere as well to local communities and I think maybe we will be able to also kind of bring examples across the different sectors as well, so we've talked a wee bit about the risk of duplication, but there's also potential I think to bring across good practice as well across the different sectors, which I think would be good. I think the potential there is quite interesting. I think the last question has to be what would be the impact for mainland coastal regions or for islands whose local authorities chose not to take on these regulatory powers? At the end of the day, you could be there, local communities, local community councils could tell me about the local councils and say, no, we don't want to do that. What would your view be? Should they be forced to do it or should people say, well, if you don't want to do it, we'll do it? Aidan, I'll let you come back with a short answer and Kathy come back for a short answer if I may on that. Aidan, would you like to lead first? Well I guess in practical terms there's still a way of feeding into the marine licensing process as it is, albeit that the decision was made at a national level rather than a local level, so it wouldn't completely exclude local communities' ability to influence local decisions, it's just that those decisions are being made more nationally, so that's really the difference there would be. But there will be some resourcing implications for local communities or local authorities associated with this, if they were to take them up, so that might be a factor in their decision making process, but that would be something for them to decide. I think that because of the optionality of the provision, that's why I think there might be a better way to achieve it by a more formal linkage to that influence of local authorities and communities into the national process, so that it's more consistent and we don't rely on local authorities having to take that decision about whether they want to go down that route or not. Thank you, can you? And the final question is John's question. Thank you. The financial memorandum, I don't know if that's the one you went to first when you were reading all this, but anyway, the costs that are laid out in the financial memorandum are mainly admin costs to do with many areas that we haven't touched on today, like ward boundaries and so on. Your overall view, are you comfortable with what's in the financial memorandum or are you concerned about anything in it? Kathy, would you like to go first on that? I have to confess that I didn't spend a lot of time perusing the financial memorandum. I mean, I think our view is that a lot of this, as I said earlier, I think is good practice and there will be some cost attached to it, but it is about basically investing the time early on in the processes to do good consultation and to have that dialogue. I think that if you are going to make sure that, for example, island proofing decisions that are taken would then be amended on the influence of what the island proofing has identified, then there's probably potentially a cost to that. But again, it's a cost that should be found. For clarity, the financial memorandum would only talk about the admin side, so I'm not afraid of any basis to know whether that's accurate or not, but certainly from our perspective, we would make sure that we have the budget to carry out the new duties. I had a quick look at the financial memorandum. I haven't assessed it in detail, but I thought that it looked reasonable and realistic. That's really as far as I could comment on it. That's one. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. That comes to the end of that evidence session. Kathy Aidan, thank you very much for coming in. Thank you for giving evidence to the committee. I'm now briefly going to suspend the meeting to allow a change over of witnesses. Thank you. Thank you. I'd now like to move on to agenda item two, which is subordinate legislation. This is the consideration of one affirmative instrument as detailed on the agenda. The Rural Committee will take evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity that the motion to approve the affirmative instrument will be considered under item three. It would be reasonable for discussion also to cover any points regarding the related negative instrument to be considered at item four. Members should note that there have been no representations to the committee on those instruments. I'd like to welcome from the Scottish Government, first of all, Fergus Ewing, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity, Jen Willoughby, the head of agricultural holdings team, Fiona Buchanan, senior policy advisor, and Douglas Kerr, the solicitor. Could I invite the Cabinet Secretary to make a short opening statement? Thank you, convener. The statement is of necessity, technical and important, I think, to convey, and it is a bit long. I am very pleased to be here today to support the consideration of the Committee of the draft Land Reform Scotland Act 2016 regulations 2017. The regulations are made by Scottish ministers in accordance with powers conferred by section 127.1 and 2 of the Land Reform Scotland Act 2016. That forms part of a package with a negative instrument, the agricultural holdings modern limited duration tenancies and consequential ETC provisions Scotland regulations 2017. There is also a commencement instrument, which is subject to no parliamentary procedure. The Land Reform Scotland Act 2016 commencement number 6 transitory and saving provisions regulations 2017. Together, the three sets of regulations make provision for the introduction of modern limited duration tenancies. I will briefly outline the content of the draft affirmative regulation and touch on the others also if I may. Modern limited duration tenancies, MLDTs, are introduced by the 2016 act as an option for future agricultural tenancies. They replace the existing limited duration tenacy LDT option set out in the Ag Holdings Scotland Act 2003. LDTs already in existence before these regulations come into force will continue to exist, but there will be no new ones except in very limited and specific circumstances. The draft affirmative regulation makes a series of consequential modifications to other acts to ensure that where they currently refer to an LDT references to MLDTs are inserted. That will ensure that MLDTs can follow smoothly from LDTs. LDTs are not simply being replaced in these acts because, as I said, those already in existence before these regulations come into force will continue to exist. The 2016 act also introduced a further new type of tenacy, the repairing tenacy. That is a type of long-term tenacy that can be used where land is currently not an estate capable of being farmed and the tenant is required to improve the land to bring it up to standard. However, the relevant provisions of the 2016 act, which provide for the creation of repairing tenancies, are not yet in force. The draft affirmative regulation before you inserts references to repairing tenancies where it inserts references to MLDTs, but the regulation also contains transitory provisions to ensure that those references are to be ignored until the repairing tenacy provisions contained in the 2016 act come into effect. We have drafted the regulations in this way to reduce further layers of amendments to various enactments in the future, so we are thinking about you. The regulations also contain other consequential modifications, supplementary, transitory and savings provisions in relation to the repeal of various sections of the 2003 act by the 16 act. Again, that is in order to facilitate transition from LDTs to MLDTs. It also ensures that MLDTs can use the existing rent review system as set out in the 2003 act until the new rent review provisions in the 16 act come into force. All of those provisions are to ensure that LDTs can be replaced by MLDTs in timely fashion and that the two forms of tenure can coexist until LDTs naturally come to an end or are converted, whichever may happen. The commencement of negative instruments also contain transitory and savings provisions and the negative instrument also has consequential modifications. Again, those are intended to ensure that references to MLDTs and repairing tenancies are inserted into relevant secondary legislation and that references to repairing tenancies are to be ignored until the relevant provisions come into effect. The negative instrument also sets out a definition of a new entrant to farming for the purposes of being eligible for a five-year break clause for an MLDT. Constructing that definition has been, convener, a lengthy process and has resulted in something that appears quite complex. I have written to you separately about that as I thought it would be helpful to do so and I hope that my letter has addressed some of the questions that you may have. I shall not therefore cover that ground again, although I will be happy to take questions on it, but I can assure you that my officials have worked closely with stakeholders to ensure that those regulations meet their requirements, particularly in relation to that definition of a new entrant. You will be aware that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee have already considered those regulations. They have identified some issues in relation to the commencement of negative instruments. We will lay an amending instrument to address the issues that they have raised. The business and regulatory impact assessment and the financial memorandum prepared for the 16 act remain valid for those regulations. I commend the regulations to you and I am very happy, along with my officials, to take any questions that you may have. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Before we go on to questions, there are some of us who would like to declare some interest. I would like to declare an interest that I am a partner in a farming partnership. As part of that partnership, I have a new form of tenancy and a secure tenancy that forms part of that farm partnership. I declare that I am a member of the RICS who may have been consulted on those issues, but I have not spoken to them about it. Peter? I would like to declare an interest that has been involved in a farming partnership in Aberdeensia. Does anyone else want to, Stuart? I am the joint owner of a very small registered agricultural hobby, which is grass-let to a neighbouring farmer. Cabinet secretary, before we move on to the questions, if I could make an observation, thank you first of all for the letter that you sent us, which, as you say, is complicated. Some members of the committee found the flowchart at the back extremely helpful as a method of tracking it through. I would like to make an observation that some of the policy notes that I have read in relation to these instruments are extremely technical and extremely complicated. I am very thankful that I studied agricultural law to be able to understand them. There may be members on the committee that do not and have not studied agricultural law. I would welcome in future, and I will address at the convener's group simpler policy notes that make it easier for committee members to understand what is trying to be achieved. Do not ask you to make comment on that, cabinet secretary. It is a comment that I would like to make. The first question that I would like to go to is Stuart, and then I would like to go to Peter. I think that Stuart has got a few, and I see that John has got a question. Peter? Thank you, convener. I have got a number of questions that are probably for officials, which are just determined to try and help me to understand what the negative instrument that is before us is trying to achieve. The first one is an obvious one, just to get on the record. I am reading that the starting assumption is that anybody with an MLDT is a new entrant until otherwise proved. That is the correct position. That is clear. I just wanted to be certain about that one. There is a new entrant, subject to what other things will come to, for the purposes of an MLDT. Does that influence or interact with the definition of a new entrant for purposes of SRDP or otherwise? In other words, can someone be a new entrant in one but not in the other, or do the of necessity have to be a new entrant in both domains? Technically, you can be a new entrant of one and not the other. That is purely for the purposes of MLDTs and whether you have a new entrant or whether you have a break clause in your lease. That was my conclusion, but I wanted to hear it said on the record. Obviously, for grant purposes you probably want to be a new entrant, but in this area you may not want to be a new entrant. Just to be clear, the five-year break can only be put in if you are a new entrant, and both the lease or and the leaseee agree to it. That is the only circumstances in which the five-year break can be put in. Looking at the definitions and first looking at section 3 in the order, which has various provisions that mean that people are considered not to be a new entrant. Just looking at one particular omission that I might have expected to see there, people who are engaged in contract farming but have never had a tenancy, never owned or controlled a tenancy. Is it the policy intention that, having spent even 20 years as a contract farmer, leaves you for the purposes of an MLDT as a new entrant? That is correct, yes. That is what our stakeholders asked us to be thinking about. I am correct in reading that, so that is the policy decision that was agreed between the consultees. Looking at some of the other drafting, and I am moving to section 3.5C, do persons who between them hold or control directly or indirectly, more than 50 per cent of the voting rights in T, what does indirectly mean? It is designed to cover situations where they might hold it through another legal person, for instance, or they do not—the right is not in their name specifically, but they still have an ability to exercise that. You are going to have to explain that a bit more for me. I do not know about Stuart. I did not understand that. I think it would be that you would have what you call a class as a frontman. Douglas, do you want to explain what that is? Yes, perhaps before you do, because it might help to link it to this. If I go to 5, there is another phrase that is similar, dominant influence, which is of a similar character. I would really like to know what that is going to mean, or who will decide what it means. We are trying to capture the range of relationships that a person might have if they are sitting behind a legal person and they have to explain what control might be. We were thinking that there might be situations where they can, in fact, be the person directing the will of the organisation, because we were not looking as much at who has got rights to the capital or the revenues from it, but who can control the decisions, so we are trying to make it as expansive as possible and to cover situations where they might exercise that right through someone else. For instance, they might hold the right in a legal person who has the right to vote in that company, or in dominant influences, if they can force their will. It is to say that they have got more influence than others. To be clear, what I am taking from this is that this is about operational decisions related to how farming is conducted and quite independent of ownership and financial benefit from farming. That was a policy intention. Can I just push a little bit on that? Personally, I am not quite sure how you define indirectly. From a son, just say that you have a son and a father. The father may directly control the son. The son will deny it. Legally, if you take that to court, you won't be able to prove it because it will be a situation that is not proved. As far as the law is concerned, I struggle to see how, by putting it in here, you are achieving anything that can be enforced. The intention behind and directly was to cover situations where they did hold it through a legal person. For the father-son relationship, that might be caught by the dominant influence, but we are trying to strike a balance generally about making the provisions work and recognising that there might be situations where the law just cannot capture the specific situations of that circumstance. Can I just push one more time on that? You would be happy to go to court and prosecute on the basis that you could prove that there was indirect control by another member. You would be happy to argue that case—not prosecute, sorry, that's the wrong word—but you would be happy to argue that case. I think that our position is that this is setting out how you determine that, but in the first instance it's not for the Scottish Government to determine who's is not for the parties to look at us themselves. I don't think that we would be pushing that. As far as I understand it, and my officials are correct if I'm wrong here, there's no question of prosecution of crimes here. This is a matter of civil law, private law between individuals and regulating proposed facilities to really encourage leasing to new entrants. That's where we're starting from here, and the work with stakeholders was designed to achieve that policy objective, but I'm not meaning to be critical. I'm just saying that it's nothing to do with criminal laws, I understand that. No, but we're looking at circumstances here where the leasor and the leasy, because they both have to agree that there is a breakpoint. They both presumably want a five-year breakpoint in the MLDT. This is a means by which saying that the leasy is indirectly controlled or influenced by someone else, that they are not entitled to that, to write that into the MLDT. That is the bottom line of what this is intended to mean. It presumably, in policy terms, is something that's not expected to happen terribly often, where both the leasor and the leasy want the MLDT to have the five-year break, but it considers there's indirect control. That will be comparatively rare in policy terms. Is that a fair comment? Yeah, I would expect so. I'm feeding you the line in the hope that you will say. Equally, can I just be clear whether dominant influence, which is in five, essentially is the same thing that is expressed with different words? That's trying to get to the situation where the party can control, they can express their will, and their will can determine the operations of the company where they might not have a specific right, and that's the kind of capture situation with the legal person might not be the kind of structure that we normally think of. I think it would be helpful if you can give us an example, because having been involved with companies in all sorts of ways, I sort of get it, but I'm not sure I do. So I'm a bit like Edward, who's got some legal training I've got experience, and I still don't quite get real circumstances. What might be useful is if you can write the committee's simple in this point to explain our thinking behind it? Well, the committee's kind of in a position of having to report to Parliament today, and I think if I'm correct, convener, the date at which this comes into operation is only four weeks away. No, you're right. I mean, we have to make a decision on it today if the cabinet secretary presses it. Well, this is negative, remember? Negative, sorry, yes. So we do have to make it. You're right, Stuart, thank you. Sorry, a second. Douglas, are you able to give us a... Yeah, so just to remember the colleague. We think one instance might be, for instance, if the son has the right and the legal person and the father is exerting the will, example you gave earlier on, convener, that might be that the father is in practice and in fact exasising influence over the son who has the interest in the legal person. And indeed, so really the use of the phrase dominant interest influence in one part and indirectly essentially comes down to basically the same thing. Yeah. Right, okay. Sorry, John, is it on this particular point or is it as... It is the point that I was going to raise, but I think it is actually relevant to this point if I may then... Okay, John, can I bring John in and then come back to you, convener? And then I've got Peter. And it was a comment about process and namely that understand that this legislation is its genesis with the Land Reform Act and there was a formal consultation in relation to that. So in respect to the documents we've got, we're told that there's informal consultation with stakeholders will continue taking place during the implementation process. And it was just to understand who's involved in that and whether maybe some of the issues that Mr Stevenson legitimately raises have been raised by any of the stakeholders. Cabinet Secretary, do you want to answer that or is it generalised as such? Well, I'll start off by answering it in general, who were involved in the pertinent question. The Scottish Government officials work closely with stakeholders and references made to NFUS, SLE, SDFA, RICS and SAVA to identify the definition that would be most appropriate of new entrants, all for the purposes of this measure, which is designed if you like to remove perceived barriers to landlords granting leases to new entrants. And as I understand it, the big picture here, convener, is that there would be some concern in landlords that some new entrants may not sort of stay the course and may not exhibit good husbandry, which I think is the phrase that is used and appears in the legislation. And that if that happened, for whatever reason, not ascribing blame to anyone, but this happens, then the landlord might be left with a very long lease and the tenant that was not able really to manage to farm exhibiting good husbandry. And that would be a problem for both of them because the landlord would have a tenant that is not really doing what it is supposed to do or able to or can do, and the tenant would be left with an obligation to pay the rent for a number of years after perhaps a point when it would be sensible to bring things to a close. So I think that that, in essence, is the kind of practical problem that the stakeholders and officials tended to pursue, but to protect myself, I would just ask officials to say if I have got that right or not, and so on. But I think that that is the kind of, the kind of caws or cawsans behind the main purpose of this. Is that right to you? Everything else falls on that and really the perfect legitimate focus on these technical questions is to avoid and is to create anti avoidance provisions, which one might not really expect to occur in the majority of cases, but the courts are there to interpret legislation. I mean, if after further discussion with stakeholders, I think this was a second implication, second point Mr Finlay rightly raises, there are any further questions to be asked, then we are intending to bring forward an amendment to deal with the DPLR issues. It would not be impossible also to bring forward an amendment if it subsequently emerges, that there is any technical defect in relation to the anti avoidance provisions, that would be perfectly possible to do and I would be willing of course to do it should that arise, but I'm not convinced that that's the case at the moment, but that's a matter for the committee to find out. Sorry, as John asked the question, I'll let him come back and then come to you. No, no, that's helpful, thank you very much. I'm trying to avoid Causa's belly, of course. But I've just got two further ones, both of which I think are quite straightforward. The one is in relation to LLPs, where despite I think some efforts that the UK Government is making on the subject, there's still in a number of cases some unlack of clarity about ultimate control and ownership, where LLPs involved. What consideration is being given to that in this year? Remembering that this is only about the ability to put a break point in, it's not about the fundamentals of something I welcome, which is the MLDT. Sorry, Cabinet Secretary, I'm happy for you. And with regard to LLPs, you'll be aware that there have been recent changes to the law made across the EU to start to tackle those particular issues and the Scottish Government officials are working with colleagues to explore opportunities to ensure that the industry is fully aware of their legal obligations in relation to LLPs, particularly for the agricultural sector, because we're working quite closely with Companies House and Companies House have contacted everybody within LLPs, within the agricultural sector, and asked them to confirm their details, which has resulted in some individuals coming back and saying that LLPs for them have ended and we are in regular correspondence with them. We're happy to share that with the committee as we progress in that area. There are 504, I think—I'll have to confirm that on writing—Scotish limited partnerships that are agricultural ones. However, it may be that the paperwork isn't in place in relation to the LLPs, and that's what Companies House is exploring at present for those individuals in the agricultural tendencies. I think that's very helpful and quite reassuring. Finally, my final point—there may not be others—in section 5A2, it refers to equivalent persons. One of the categories of equivalent persons that I thought that might apply to would be proxies that might be, for the purposes of a meeting only, exercising deliberative control over decisions, while not otherwise having any interest through ownership or influence. Is that the sort of thing that's meant by equivalent persons or is there more to it than that? An equivalent person was to capture the fact that not all legal persons will have shareholders and share a capital, so it's to cut across to you slightly there. Do you think that you have things like partnerships? Thank you, convener. You've just been having some very detailed questioning from Mr Stevenson. My question is a much broader question, but nevertheless a very important question. In your letter, cabinet secretary, you say that attracting new entrants into agriculture has been identified as one of the most serious issues affecting the industry. I couldn't agree more, and I expect that you feel that this MLDT will go some way to addressing that problem. To be honest, I hate my dudes, and I don't think this will make much difference whatsoever, because the real problem with the tenancy sector in Scotland is landlords have lost the confidence in letting land on a long-term basis, simply because various SNP ministers over the years have continually raised the issue of an absolute right to buy. We've seen thousands of acres lost to the tenancy sector this year alone. My question is this. Do you, cabinet secretary, agree with me that the real problem here is the absolute right to buy is still floating around there in the background? Sorry, I'm going to take the question and I'm going to let the cabinet secretary answer it. Okay, Richard. I don't see the relevance of that question to what we'll discuss in just a minute. I think that the link is that there's trying to identify the way to increase tenanted land, which is the aim of the MLDT. Peter is trying to provide a link. I take the point that you made. I'd like to let Peter finish the question, the cabinet secretary, to take it, and then Richard, I believe that you have a further question. So Peter, would you like to finish your question briefly and the cabinet secretary answer it? I felt that I did make the link and it's an important link and I would like the cabinet secretary to respond. If he would unequivocally take off the table the absolute right to buy, I think that he would do far more for the tenanted sector than anything else that we are discussing today. Can I, cabinet secretary, would you like to answer that question? Well, what I would say is that we are focusing today on specific statutory instruments, and I will address my remarks to that statutory instrument. Of course, there is a much wider debate, but I think that I am able to say that I have worked with all stakeholders, including SLE, in numerous meetings and engagements, in formal and formal, to indicate that we are determined to get the best possible use of land in Scotland to encourage landowners and tenants to work together. Quite frankly, this process has resulted from that practical working, so I'm not here to score political points here, but to address relevant questions in relation to these statutory instruments, and that's, of course, what I shall do, but I'm working positively with landlords and tenants to encourage them to use the vehicles, which, after all, they negotiated themselves, both prior to the 2003 act and in respect of today's statutory instruments. These are matters that we have discussed with landlords' representatives, as well as tenants' representatives, and brought it forward after that process in the hope that these measures will be used, and I would encourage them to be used so that we can see more new entrants coming in to farming. I'm not saying that these instruments themselves will do everything, but, of course, we have very solid financial support measures for both young farmers and new entrants, and that is the principle policy object policy, means that we seek to bring in new people and younger people to farming. No comment, no comment, on absolute right to buy, would serve our cabinet secretary. Peter, I think that that is strange and I'm going to stop that there, and I'm going to move to Richard Lyle's question on these statutory instruments. Yeah, well, you know, at the end of the day, I read this letter also. I don't see the concerns that people have. It says anything. Can you confirm? Stakeholders have not raised any concerns with us about this process. Can I remind people on this committee that we're not doomed as Mr Chapman would suggest? I can also remember that right to buy was brought in, I think, for housing by the Tories about 30-odd years ago, so it's not the first time that right to buy has been used. Richard, you've made your point, and I think you strayed as far as you accused another member of the committee of straying, so I'm going to park it there. Are there any other questions that the committee would like to ask? I would like to ask one to sum up my concerns. Any other? Sorry, Jamie. The panel will be pleased to know that I'm not going to go into great detail the wording of the SSIs. Just on the point of addressing the issue of long-term leases and landlords concerns over that, in layman's terms, is it that the definition of a new entrant is changing in this, or is it the introduction of the five-year break clause? I was a bit unclear as to what was new in this compared to what was happening in the 2003 act. The five-year break clause, which is new, and the definition of a new entrant applies to that five-year break clause only. It is a new definition, but only for the purposes of MLDTs. However, the thing that is new about MLDTs is the introduction of the five-year break clause. Thank you. Does anyone else have any questions? I have one further question. In relation to the points that were brought up about from Stuart regarding equivalent person dominant control and indirect control, it seems to me that you are trying to sweep up a variety of interests that could conflict with the aims of the bill. It may be that those actual definitions do not necessarily work, and it would be nice to have an assurance from the cabinet secretary that, if the aims are not achieved by those sweeping-up phrases, he will look at further legislation to sweep them up, as he tended to do in the legislation. Of course, if there are, and this applies to the generality of subordinate legislation, any manifest flaws that are brought to our attention by anyone, of course we will study them, and if it is persuaded that there is indeed a flaw in the law, we will take steps to correct it. Of course we will not be happy to give that assurance. Okay. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Could I ask you if there are any closing remarks that you would like to make at this stage that I would ask you to make them brief if possible, cabinet secretary? I would commend these measures. Thank you. We can now move on to agenda item 3, which is the formal consideration of motion S5M-07896, in the name of the cabinet secretary, asking the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee to recommend that the Land Reform Scotland Act 2016 supplementary, consequential, trans-history and saving provisions regulations 2017 be approved. Can I ask cabinet secretary for you to move the motion, as described above, formally, please? Formally moved. Are there any further comments that the committee members would like to make? No. The question is that motion S5M-07896 be agreed. Are we all agreed? That is agreed, and that concludes consideration of agenda item 3. Can I suspend the meeting briefly to allow witnesses to leave the room and thank the cabinet secretary and his team for attending the meeting today? Thank you. I am going to move on to agenda item 4, subordinate legislation. Agenda item 4 is the consideration of a negative instrument as detailed on the agenda. Members should note that no motions to a null have been received and there have been no representations to the committee on this instrument. Are there any comments from members regarding this instrument? I would just welcome the approach that has been taken. I think that the technical things are things that we should always challenge because of the 2003 act in which every politician in the Parliament agreed on that ended up being to some limited degree floored by some technical issues. I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary has said in relation to what the Delegate of Powers and Law Reform Committee has said that they are looking at bringing another instrument forward to address their concerns. I heard the cabinet secretary say that he would in that context look at anything that he has said. I, for my part, have not identified any changes that I would encourage him to make. I thought that it was a useful important point to flush that out from his officials. I think that any switch between two bits of legislation is the transitional arrangements that are absolutely key. What I took reassurance from was a couple of things. I have had no representations in respect of issues made and there is on-going engagement from the people who should be engaged with on this issue. Does any other member of the committee wish to make comment? Is the committee agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendations, apart from the fact that we welcome the discussion of this instrument? Is that what we are agreeing? That is agreed. Therefore, I would like to move on to a gender item five subordinate legislation, which is the consideration of a negative instrument that is detailed on the agenda. Members should note that no motions to annul have been received and there have been no representations of the committee on this instrument. Does anyone on the committee wish to make any comment on this instrument? Is the committee therefore agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendation in relation to this instrument? That is agreed. That concludes today's business in November, where we will be taking evidence with the Minister of Transport on the Islands Bill and we will also have an evidence session on the rail services with Scott Rail Alliance. Thank you for your attendance and that is the meeting closed.