 Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the seventh meeting in 2015 of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee. Before we move to the first item, I remind everyone present to switch off mobile phones. However, members of the committee will probably be using tablets to provide meeting paper in digital format. The decision, agenda item 1, about taking business and private, suggests that agenda item 5 today, consideration of a draft letter to the Scottish Government on the disposal of local authority assets, be held in private and at subsequent meetings, do members agree? Yes. Thank you. Subordinate legislation, agenda item 2. This includes two items. The Plant Health Scotland amendment order 2015, SSI 2015-10, and the Tweed regulations amendment order 2015, SSI 2015-11. The second of the Tweed regulations amendment order 2015 has been drawn to Parliament's attention as it came into force on 31 January this year and therefore failed to comply with the 28-day rule. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee found this breach to be unsatisfactory in the circumstances of the instrument as it created one new criminal offence and modifies the application of another. I refer members to the paper and ask if you have any comments to make on those two items of subordinate legislation. Nobody has any comments to make. If there are no comments, then, as the committee agreed, it does not wish to make any further recommendations in relation to those instruments. Are we agreed? We are agreed. Thank you very much. Agenda item 3, Wild Fisheries review panel final report. The third item today is to review the evidence that the Wild Fisheries panel has gathered in the report. We are joined this morning by the panel Andrew Thin, chair of the Wild Fisheries review panel, Jane Hope and Michelle Francis, a member of the Wild Fisheries review panel. Good morning all. We will try to keep our questions close to the spirit of the wide-ranging report that you have made of 50 recommendations and more, but, nevertheless, it is something that could well modernise the whole of our approach to wild fisheries. What led you to recommend establishing a new national unit within Government and who do you envisage should head up such a unit to lead this whole process? The theme of accountability is very strong right through this report. Scotland's wild fisheries are a public resource of considerable potential and considerable importance. As things stand at the moment, the management system in Scotland is not fully accountable to the Scottish people, it is not democratically accountable, and so that theme is reflected in the proposal for a national unit. Who should head it, of course, is a matter for ministers, that is not for us. I do want to underline this. An entirely associated and very strong theme in the report is the theme of decentralisation, of local empowerment, of harnessing the power of voluntarism and everything that goes with that. It is very important to see those two things together. Just before I bring in Alex Ferguson and Mike Russell, we take the local aspect of it together so that we can see the two sides of the coin. What powers would the fishery management organisations that you propose by their view have if there is going to be this national overview? Did you look at any alternative approaches to fishery management organisations and the national approach? In terms of alternatives, there are a number of alternatives that we looked at that can be summarised briefly. At one extreme, we looked at the idea of, in effect, statutory bodies with ministers appointing boards and all that sort of thing, so that would be at one extreme, and at the other extreme, they could ultimately be private companies simply contracting with the Government to deliver services completely at the other extreme. Our view was first of all that bringing the thing too much into statute would be cumbersome and would probably undermine the whole principle of empowerment and voluntarism. It is very difficult to harness that kind of enthusiasm if you use an overly statutory route for the local bodies. Go the other way and say, look, it is just a private company. You start to lose the whole issue of accountability, so that is why it sits in the middle. Alex Ferguson, I want to continue the expression of that theme if I may in a good morning panel. Your first recommendation in the entire report states that the new wild fisheries management system should be firmly based on a decentralised and locally empowered model, and nobody is going to argue with that, I do not think. Yet here we are discussing a very much centralised and very empowered overarching authority. I am having difficulty in seeing how those two join up. Are we not looking at what is going to be something of a power struggle, if you like, between the local management order, which will vary from being one catchment in size, as far as I can see, and we will probably come to that later, to several rivers being taken in. This centralised body is to deliver the national policy. I really would like further explanation of how you see that working. I am sure that it will take more than one of us to answer this one completely. However, there is always that balance to achieve between local interests and national interests, if you could say, public interests and private interests, and I think that is what we are talking about here. I think that the actual management, the actual delivery, if you like, of what we are looking for, the management of wild fisheries stocks is always going to be done at a local level by the people with local knowledge. That is quite right, and that is what our arrangements have tried to maintain. On the other hand, what we are looking at is essentially a public resource and a very valuable one, and one on which ministers have international commitments. It is quite important that efforts, while directed at things locally, are co-ordinated in a way that gives us the best outcomes nationally, because it is a national resource. That is the balance that we have tried to strike. Can I pick up your point about attention? Yes, clearly that must be the case. There are many other examples in terms of public service delivery, where equivalent models exist, where some sort of national and sometimes local authority driven mechanism provides the overall strategic framework, and then in effect the third sector care services is an obvious example, and a lot of issues in health, too, where locally empowered, in effect, third sector contractors of a sort, then harness the whole power of local initiative for volunteers and so on to deliver the service. This has been made to work for, it is not a novel idea. We looked at different models. The central issue, as Jane says, is the issue of accountability. It is a management of a public resource centre. One option might have been, for example, to transfer all of this to local government, where you have got an existing accountable mechanism. That, again, as Jane says, creates the difficulty that, as a national resource you have international treaty obligations and all the rest of it in here, it is difficult to do that entirely through local government. The model that we are suggesting is not some sort of big, all-encompassing central monolith, and we have emphasised that again and again, and I would emphasise it here because implementation will be everything here. We think there needs to be national strategic direction and national accountability of this system for all the reasons we have given. We think there must be a very, very high level of decentralisation and local empowerment in the actual delivery. That will not, that will be, there will be attention in that relationship. That tension may be at times destructive, it may be at times constructive, but I do not think it is, because there is attention, there is not necessarily a reason for not doing it. I think the two alternatives, which is to decentralise the whole thing and lose accountability or centralise the whole thing and lose local empowerment, those two alternatives are undesignable. Can I just, very, very briefly, one more question? Do you have evidence to suggest that we are not adhering to our international responsibilities at this point in time? I think there is a risk of that, yes. I think there is a significant risk that we may not be able, whether we are not adhering right now, I'm not sure I can answer that, but there's certainly a risk that we might not adhere to our international responsibilities in relation to salmon, and at the moment ministers don't have all the tools in the toolbox to deal with that because the system is too centralised and unaccountable, too decentralised and unaccountable. Mike Russell. I think the report is very good, but I wanted to try and just strengthen this part of it, because there's another purpose for having this national unit and an individual involved, which is, essentially, to create the institutional memory of how salmon are managed. I am old enough to remember, and I think Sarah probably was, too, as Environment Minister, the estimable David Dunkley as, first of all, as Her Majesty's Inspector of Salmon, and then as the salmon expert in the civil service, who was able to bring many years of specialised knowledge. That's been lost in a civil service at which there's a substantial churn within every department. Having people who have a memory of what has taken place, who know international and national policy, who can rely upon the resource, for example, the fresh water lab at Lochfaskily, which has done some tremendous work on these matters, would be important. I presume that you would not object if that purpose was injected into this idea, so that there was some national thinking that could inform local decision making, which was based on experience and expertise. Absolutely not. During the process that we pursued here was a very open, participative, collaborative process that led to this report. Through that process, one of the things that absolutely came forward was that whoever leads this national unit needs to have that kind of longevity, that kind of expertise, that kind of credibility, that kind of institutional memory. We banded it around terms like Wild Fisheries, Commissioner and all the rest of it, but we eventually, in the report, concluded that that was a matter for government, so we didn't go there. The principles that you articulate are well supported across the sector and by us. Tensions already exist between boards and netsmen. Government decisions in this area have been subject to criticism and, if memory serves even legal challenge, do you think that the proposals that you have here will actually improve that situation and, presumably, you do? I am anxious to let Michelle have a go at something, but let me start. Conflict is not only a matter of structure, it is also about individuals and culture and all that sort of stuff. There is undoubtedly a job to do here, which is about the sector better managing those conflicts. Government can do so much. I think there is a strong theme in this report about the need for better leadership across this sector. It is too fragmented and so on and so forth, and those are matters mainly for stakeholders, not for government. I just make that point by way of preamble, which is important. However, yes, I think there are things that government can do. The fundamental theme in this report, which is relevant to your question, is the issue of decisions being made on the basis of sound, science and evidence. We have a population of salmon. We are very fortunate to have a population of salmon in Scotland that generates a sustainable surplus every year, which can be harvested and generate employment, economic welfare, recreation and all the rest, but we are very lucky. If we let that population fall to a point where there is no sustainable surplus, we will be doing our children a huge disservice. We are recommending very strongly in there that, while there is still a sustainable service, we put a system in place that ensures that that sustainable surplus is harvested on the basis of good, solid science and in a rationed way. That system is not novel, it is nothing new. If you go to many other developed countries in the world where species are harvested on a sustainable basis, they adopt the same rationing system whereby scientists decide what the surplus is each year and that surplus is then rationed out on the basis of a licensing system, usually with a charge. Often the charge is part of the licensing system because it is how much you can afford to pay. We are not saying that. We are saying that you could use a market mechanism to ration it. We are not recommending that. We are recommending that government simply fixes a charge that is a cost recovery basis. I absolutely accept what you say. People will continue to argue that is human nature. The sector needs to address that, but they will be arguing against a scientifically robust objective system, which at the moment they are not. It places different users on a level playing field in terms of how that rationing is done so that it enables the discussion to be over the same parameters and it is transparent how that decision has been made. Let us move on to resourcing the wild fisheries management. Jim Hume. Good morning, everybody. Nice to see you. In the report, it suggests that levees would mostly be spent within the FMO areas where they were raised, but there should be flexibility to move funds between different areas. That is quite interesting. I would just wonder if you would be able to give some examples of circumstances where levees funding should be moved from one FMO area to another. We encountered quite a lot of evidence that suggests that, in certain parts of the country and in certain rivers, relatively short-term investment would allow those populations to come back up. At the moment, we have a system where the income generation is very segmented. In some ways, it is almost counterintuitive that the successful rivers are the ones that generate the most income and therefore the ones who spend the most money on the river. The ones that have declined the most are the ones that then get the least money spent on them. You could argue that the ones that are down need more investment to bring them back up. The ones that are doing well possibly need less. As a matter of principle, I think that flexibility is important to allow the country to invest in places where the return on that investment will be best. The danger of not having that system is that you get into a spiral that a river will go down so its income goes down. Its income goes down so it goes down and on you go down and you end up with some rivers. There probably are some on the west which are close now to having no sustainable surplus because there is no money to invest. I just wonder if fish owners would have a legal right to challenge that. Obviously, if you are in the Nithcree and Tweed and you see the money going up to the Tay and the Spey or just to use examples, then I can see some people being concerned regarding that. I just wonder if there is any scope for any legal challenge on that. Also, who would decide where the funds go? Is there any mechanism of appeal and how criteria would you have or would it just be a general decision? I am just interested in the mechanics of it. First of all, I think that it is more likely to go the other way. Secondly, like any system of raising rates or taxation, if the legislation is framed correctly, I see no grounds for legal talent. I think that when we went round and talked to people, we had lots and lots of sessions with stakeholders on this, that certainly what I heard was a general acceptance of that principle provided that it was not a massive proportion of the money that the more affluent rivers were providing. They understood the logic of that principle. Therefore, in your mind, what is the criteria? What are the criteria? Is it four moving funds from one area to the other? You are saying that it would be a massive proportion. It is also said that it would be some spent. Is it 51 per cent, 10 per cent, 99 per cent? Has that been thought out? Has it wouldn't be a massive proportion? It wouldn't be a massive proportion. The principle must be where do you get the best return for public investment? That has to be the principle. It is quite difficult, at this point in time, to predict exactly, because that will change according to environmental factors and all the rest of it. If it is the case that investing £100,000 in the Cree will deliver an additional 1,000 fish a year and investing £100,000 in the Cree will deliver a five-axe to fish a year, clearly the public interest is best served by investing it in the Cree. Graham Day and then Alec Ferguson with a short supplementary question. Thank you. What about a situation where at the mouth of a river you had a netting operation that was operating in a mixed stock and their actions were impacting on a series of other rivers? Would you envisage a situation there where there was a transfer of levy income? I don't think that there's any difference. The levy income would still be charged on that business. In effect, the levy would be a business right on that business. It would then be for ministers in effect to decide how that money is deployed. The basis of the decision would be where will we get the best return for public investment? That's got to be the fundamental here. I don't think it would be any different from mixed stock. Something looks like we move straight into a similar area with Claudia Beamish. Nina, good morning to you. Could I turn our focus to sporting and business rates? You'll be aware, of course, that the consultation on land reform proposes the reintroduction of sporting rates for stalking and shooting businesses. The consultation also said that business rate exemptions for fisheries would be considered separately by ministers in response to the recommendations of the review that you have been leading. Could any of you comment on whether you think that fisheries should continue to be exempt from sporting and business rates? If so, why? In effect, our recommendation is that business rates are reintroduced for fisheries. That's the effect of the recommendation. What we've called the core levy would effect be a business right on fisheries. It's very, very close to what land reform review group recommended. We have also, however, said that there will be circumstances at a local level where local stakeholders believe that additional investment is required specifically in that system or that region. It should be open, as it is open now, for those stakeholders to propose to ministers an additional local rate that is explicitly hypothecated for local investment. Labour pointed out how much time we've got just to build on what Andrews said. The logic is that that levy is split into two. There's an element that is, in a sense, equivalent to the business rate, and that's the element that we're looking to cover delivery of things in the public interest. The other part of the levy, which is more at the discretion locally, is to deliver very much local requirements. That's the logic of the split. Thank you for that explanation. Mike Russell, you're coming in now on Angling. The issue of Angling for all. The concept is there, but I'd like to explain a little, and its relationship to rod licences. I have to say that the rod licences issue is controversial. Andrew knows that I've written to him on behalf of constituents on this matter. There are a number of people who see rod licences as a thin end of a wedge and who are concerned that it restricts their ability to undertake something that they've undertaken for a very long time. I'd like to know whether Angling for all is an assistance to that, and I'd like to know what—I see that the report is very cautious about rod licences—whether that caution can be expressed even more strongly by yourselves. The report is very clear that we're not recommending a rod licence as such, but we are trying to explore the potential in there. We've received lots of submissions on this subject, some very supportive and some very hostile and some in between. So it's clearly a very divisive and difficult issue and a very difficult political issue. So what we're saying is, look, this sport, this recreation, has significant underdeveloped potential in Scotland, underdeveloped economic potential, but underdeveloped social potential. A lot more people could be doing this—getting out and doing it—in the canals and the rivers in the middle of the Clyde. You know, this is not all about people in tweeds up in the island's fantastic. So if we're going to do that, if we're going to make this activity much more widespread, much more inclusive, much more diverse and of much more public value, then we're going to have to invest. That's not something that's going to happen automatically. And in an age of austerity, we can't expect government to come out with large chunks of new money. So if we're going to do it, first of all, we've got to get all these sectoral bodies, and there's a surprising number of bodies in this sector. Let's get them all together and let's develop a really serious development programme of probably a decade that changes the face of the sport in Scotland. If that can be designed and put together, and if it is well supported across the sector, our impression is that our rod licence to fund that would be politically supported. But just ramming in a rod licence is not a sensible thing. A rod licence is a hypothecated taxation to develop the sport. Ministers will be, I think, very nervous of that, given it is the introduction of a new taxation. What level would a rod licence have to be to make sufficient investment, given the nature of those who are taking part at the moment? Well, we thought quite hard about that, and of course the answer is, well, it depends what sufficient is. To some extent, it's one of those sort of how long is a piece of string questions. So we looked at it from a slightly different end of the telescope. We said, well, what happens south of the border or in other countries? How much is it? And what sort of sums of money would that raise? And our conclusion was that if the rate charge was broadly similar to comparisons with other countries, that would give you a very significant change in some of the sums at the time. But there's questions in there about take-up rates and obedience and so on, but it would raise significance sums of money. We are edging closer to the awful truth of the figure. Can we just edge a little bit closer? Jane, you're always the master detail. How much would it have to be? I haven't had a page in front of me, which is a very difficult thing to come up with precise figures on. But for illustration purposes, there was a study at Glasgow Caledonian University, which indicated 260,000 participants, doesn't say how those people are participating, and there will be a number of visitors included in there as well as residents. So 260,000 participants, that's one number to keep in your head. If we look across the border where rod licences have been used for a long time, interestingly, just to digress, when they were introduced in 92, numbers declined apparently for quite a long while, and then suddenly picked up again around about 2007-08. I never got to the bottom of why that happened, but I suspect there must have been something in there about publicity, making it easier and all the rest of it, so that's just a side issue, but an interesting one. But the average cost of the licence is average licence cost of £16.80, and that's a mix of all types of licence. So even if you charge £10 a person on average, you'd be raising £2.6 million, is what I was leading up to, so I don't want to start, I'm always very wary about banding figures about, but you can see it's doable for a relatively modest sum. Is there any information on two aspects of that? One is, do people buy them or do they attempt to evade them, and what are the penalties for evading them? Because if you have a rod licence, you have to enforce the licence. Secondly, if you were to have £2.63 million, what would you, briefly, what would you invest in? What would benefit would those people who presently fish see from that, apart from possibly more people fishing on waters, which they would like to have to themselves? First of all, I think a significant amount of the investment would be about bringing new people in, and what is striking about this sector is that the bulk of people who spoke to us are very concerned about the fact that there aren't enough young people coming in behind them, so there's clearly a lot of, and I'm not sure that everyone is entirely self-interested, actually. I've still retained an enthusiasm for the notion that society is more than that. So my sense is that actually a licence that is sold on the basis that this is your contribution to helping the future generations to participate is one that would receive significant support. However, on top of that, and we mentioned it in the report, part of that, undoubtedly, is improving access to information about where and how to fish, because although when we delved into it we found no real obstacles to fishing in Scotland, the reality is that the vast majority of people or ordinary punters who come find it incredibly difficult to get information. So the big plus for existing fishers would be a really good system of information about how, where, when and all the rest of it. But I do think that a very strong part of this is saying to the sector, if you're serious about the future of this sport that you love, you need to help us invest in it. Penalty? If you don't pay your licence, what happens elsewhere? I mean, I think you can use the same system as Dan Siles, where there's some sort of finding system, I don't know the ins and outs of it. The bailiff system already exists in Scotland and could be used to police it. I entirely accept that you do not want to spend a great deal of that money then policing the whole, you know, that, I mean, that's just silly. But I think, you know, the impression I have from, and we gained from evidence given to us, is that the system could be made to work and it could be pleased through the existing bailiffing system. There would be an evasion rate which we would have to live with. And I think a very strong theme in our recommendation is that if you introduce a licensing scheme that is just taking money off people, attacks, it's not going to be popular, people will evade it and it's just not a good thing to do and you don't need to do it so don't do it. If you introduce a scheme which is about the current generation of fishers helping to develop their sport and bring young folk in, you'd create a completely different dynamic. Thank you. Well, I have to cut across that slightly by suggesting in this conversation that if you've got a rod licence and you're encouraging people to fish, you have to find more water on which they can fish. In other words, access to water, which may at the present time be extremely restricted by the approach of the riparian owners in these river catchment areas. So would part of the rod licence be used for that? First of all, we find a lot of evidence of under capacity, under fishing, particularly in trout waters, serious under fishing, actually leading ironically to too many fish, which are too small, and fishing would actually help the fishery. So there's plenty of capacity in Scotland. The issue is about access and about information. So there's a number of recommendations in there about the protection order system, which currently isn't working in our view and needs to work and needs to be about good access. But we also think that in relation to trout waters in particular, that most owners of trout waters, if there is increasing demand and good centralised, almost certainly internet-based systems to provide information about that, that we didn't counter any suggestion that people didn't want people to fish on these waters, that the main thing was simply that there's no information. It's a common problem in Scotland which was, if you recall, the debate around access legislation, that lots and lots of visitors come to Scotland and find Scotland an inaccessible Scottish country. It's about information, it's not actually about restriction. Okay, the second point to this. Clearly riparian owners have guests and clients. Would those guests and clients be subject to rod licensing as well? So wherever anybody came from, whichever country, whichever part of the country, they would pay a rod licence to fish in particular part of the river systems. So to do so sustainably, Alex Ferguson wants to pick up that point. Thank you, convener. This whole subject of sustainability is central to a great deal of thinking in this review, which is obviously a good thing. I wonder if I could start off by exploring the recommendation that ministers should introduce a ban on the killing of wild salmon except under licence in Scotland, which is already out for consultation. This sort of slightly reads to me that this is a good thing for netting operations, so we better have it on the rivers as well. I wonder if I could just explore a little bit of how this would apply on the river system, because I'm not clear who would apply for the licence. I'm not clear how the quota, because this would introduce a quota under another name, as I see it, because you have to apply for the number of fish you want to take. How you do that in advance of a season, I have no idea, because you have no idea what that season is going to be on any given river in terms of runs and catches. I'm not clear how it would be distributed across any river on the different beats. I'm not clear how it would be shared out month by month, or is it once you've reached your quota, it's catch and release only. There is no killing of salmon in the spring run anyway. Killing a three-pound grilse is surely very different to killing a 14-pound egg-bearing female. I just find that the practicalities of this on a river system, I don't understand them, and I wonder if you could expand your thinking in that line. The final point that I would ask on this is that you rightly say that everything in this has to be soundly based on science, and I'd really like to know where the evidence is that rod fishing is part of the decline in salmon stocks, because I don't believe that evidence, I'm not convinced that evidence exists, and your report would suggest actually that it doesn't exist either. On the last point first, actually most years rods kill more fish than nets, so I think it's important to be clear about that. So we are talking about a very significant number of fish being killed on rivers by rods. So this system is based on what is now widely used internationally to ration the sustainable surplus of a quarry animal, whether it's a salmon or a big horn sheep or any other thing. It's a widely used system. Pretty much impossible to introduce that system for one user of the species, if you like, and not another, because it predigates on if you kill a fish and keep it, you must have the licence to do so, and if you can't police that system, if some people have to have a licence but others don't, it's not possible. Everyone needs to be treated the same here. I think it's perfectly functional on a river. Clearly the desirable outcome of all this is that we move more to the trend towards greater catch and release for rods continues, and that's already the D for example is I think 100% more or less catch and release now. We need to continue that trend because there is only modest sustainable surplus here, and we need to discourage the killing of this species right across the piece. So it's important to be also clear that we would anticipate and hope that more and more owners of rod beats would simply move to 100% catch and release, which is already happening. Some would wish to continue to kill fish, that's accepted. It is entirely reasonable to say, to ask people to decide now how many fish they wish to kill next year, that seems perfectly reasonable. They can fish for as many as they like, but how many do you actually want to kill seems a reasonable thing to ask. So I don't see a problem with asking them in advance. Everyone has to apply for what they want by the 31st of December. There is only a problem if... I'm sorry to interrupt. Who is everyone? Is it the beat owner or the riparian owner? The riparian owner. The riparian owner is very clear about that in the report. Riparian owners would apply for that by the end of the year for what they wanted. There is only a problem if the total number of applications exceeds the sustainable surplus. So the rationing only kicks in if that happens, and in many, many rivers of course, that sounds likely because the bulk of people in the book... First of all, as I say, I think the trend to catch and release will continue. People will not want to bother with this. They'll just go to catch and release, and that's what one would hope. But where the number of applications exceeds the sustainable surplus, there has to be a rationing, and it has to be done on the basis of sound science, and it has to be on the basis, on some sort of sensible basis, which could be in proportion to your application or it could be in proportion to how many miles of bank you own. I think that's a matter for the unit to decide, but it's not a difficult thing to do. The evidence you have to suggest that Rod catching is partially responsible for the decline in salmon stocks? On the basis of simple statistics, in most years, but I accept that in dry years it's different, but most years, significantly more fish are killed by rods than by gnats. That would suggest that rods are a significant factor. Before you ask your other questions, have you another point on that because I have a supplementary ally? Graham Day. I just wonder in terms of the issue of licences. Will there be a fit and proper person test applied both at the stage of the initial application and then reflecting the conduct of the licences as the licence renewal comes up every year? It's not something that we consider because there isn't a fit and proper person test attached to the ownership of salmon of fishing rights, which is really what would be required. There is consideration under land reform around whether some sort of test should be applied, but that's a wider issue than we were looking at. Wouldn't you accept that there perhaps ought to be a fit and proper person test given what you're trying to achieve by introducing that? It doesn't seem unreasonable. Because I say it, it's a wider issue which is around the ownership of rights and is really a land reform issue. I'm assuming that you haven't considered the fit and proper person test for the person exercising right to fish either. No. That's maybe another subject. I still have reservations about the actual practical implications of this, but we'll maybe come to that again later. Moving on from that particular issue, there is a proposal to create an offence of reckless and irresponsible management of fishing rights. Could you just expand a little bit on how you might see that being applied and what sort of conduct you would see as causing that particular offence, and indeed how and who would enforce it perhaps? We did think long and hard about this and whether to include it, so I would accept the inference of your question entirely. It's a very difficult one. However, we did receive and I stress anecdotal evidence that in some circumstances, the ownership of fishing rights deliberately and quite extensively set out to remove certain species in an unsustainable way. Therefore, we think that there will be circumstances where this measure would be desirable and effective. I think it's one of these things where policing is very difficult, so the main reason for having it is to create a disincentive in the first place. Who would you see as being the overseer of this, the guardian of right to proper management? The first line of defence in this, as in other things, will be the bailiffing system. In effect, it would create a new wildlife crime. Thank you for that. Finally, on this subject from myself, you also talk about taking a precautionary approach to mixtop fisheries. You also recommend phasing in reduction in catches in some instances. I just again wonder if you could expand on that a little and give us an example of where that might be appropriate and how it would be beneficial. There may be a mixtop fishery. By and large, we did not encounter evidence to suggest that there is significant overfishing, so let's be clear about that. However, come back to the point that this needs to be science-based, evidence-based, and we should not be harvesting more than the sustainable surplus from a population. We should not be doing that. In mixtop fisheries, it is particularly difficult to work out what the sustainable surplus is. Therefore, while we further develop that science, and Marine Scotland is doing a lot of very, very good work in our view to try and get that science better, but it needs money and needs investment and all the rest of it, fish counters and so on, and radio trackers and all this sort of thing. While that work is going on, it makes sense to take a relatively precautionary approach because we simply don't know exactly what the sustainable surplus in a mixtop fishery is. We say may because we simply don't know. It may be that the scientists conclude that in one or two places a mixtop fishery is currently fishing at an unsustainable level and needs to be stepped down. If that happens, we are simply saying, let's do that in a stepped manner. It doesn't have to, it's not so urgent it has to be done overnight. It could be done over three to five years, the stepping down, because there will be social and economic consequences from stepping down and netting catch, and that needs to be done responsibly by government. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much for that. Angus McElwine? Thank you, convener. Good morning, panel. With regard to the scientific evidence base that you just mentioned, to support wild fisheries management, you have identified a number of gaps in the knowledge base, in particular the reliance on self-reporting of catch data as a weakness in the current system. Your review goes on to recommend a number of areas where research is needed in the short to medium term, and there's quite an extensive list of these recommendations. You've also recommended in the review that the national unit should develop standards for fisheries management, including data collection, training and CPD for FMOs, amongst others. Given that you've identified a number of pieces of research that you recommend should be completed over the short to medium term, can I ask if there's already work being done in any of these areas? The answer is yes, and there's already an extensive programme being led by Marine Scotland, but also local fisheries boards and local fisheries trusts are funding significant amounts of research through third sector funding as well. So there's a lot going on. A real theme here is twofold. One is let's make the research more co-ordinated at a national level is too fragmented, and secondly let's make sure that it's genuinely prioritised and strategically driven so that the money, whether it's third sector money or public money that's being spent, that we get the maximum possible impact for that investment. Okay, and have you assessed the resource implications for all these issues to be funded and have you considered what work should be prioritised? Given the funding arrangements and the available resources that are likely to come through those, that is enough to do that. In some ways you can always spend more money on research if you want to, but we think that the existing levels of funding are sufficient to do a reasonable job here that we're not saying government needs to spend more money. If government wanted to spend more money it could do things faster, yes, but it doesn't need to, and in the report we say where we think the priorities are, and they're mainly around ensuring that we can meet international obligations in relation to some, which is the top priority, I think. Okay, so you are of the opinion that the extra resources are not required to ensure that the data situation is improved? No, and there's a balancing here. The more money you spend on research the more certain you can be what the sustainable surplus is. The less certain you are the more you have to take a precautionary approach, so there's a balance. If you don't want to be precautionary you can spend more money to get more certainty, but precaution allows you to work within the available resources, and everyone knows that resources are currently very tight and the economy simply can't stand, like spending vast amounts of money on salmon research at the moment. Can I just add one codosil to that? The number of fisheries trust is 40-something, sorry, the number of salmon boards is 40-something, and you've got 20-something fisheries trusts. One of the recommendations that's been made down the years is that there are too many. I don't have a view on whether there are too many or not, but I think it falls out of the recommendations that you would probably end up with a smaller number of fisheries management organisations in total, and thereby lie some of the efficiencies that I think we'd be expecting to fall out of this rearrangement, because if you just go and have a look at the size of some of the organisations, they're very small and not really able to pick up some of the work that needs doing. So by ending up with organisations that have a greater critical mass individually, I think you're much better placed for each of them to be doing the work that's required, so it's about better use of the funding rather than increasing the funding. Okay, thank you. Halleic Ferguson? In fact, to follow on that exactly, I mean my local fishery trust, the Galloway Fisheries Trust, of which only 10 per cent of their spend is raised by local levies. The rest is by voluntary fundraising and grants and all that sort of thing, and while they are largely supportive of most of what's been proposed, they do have a concern, and I suspect that other trusts will have the same concern, that, if you like, the centralisation of funding before it is redistributed might well have an impact on the local feeling of ownership of that trust, if I could put it that way. I just wondered if you'd thought about that and taken it into consideration, I see, by the nod that you obviously have done, but how do you counter that concern? We've spent a lot of time in your area, because there's some particularly difficult challenging issues, so we refer to the possibility of a federated structure for FMOs in areas like yours, recognising exactly that ownership issue. But just to be very clear, in a case like that, the 90 per cent that is raised through the third sector would still be raised through the third sector, and government would have nothing to do with that. It's only the government, it's only the public money that we're saying needs to be brought under democratic control, and that seems intuitively right, but also more efficient, because government is then able to ensure that it gets best value for the public spend. But there are some misunderstandings, I think, still out there about what it is that we're saying. A trust that raises 90 per cent of its money from the third sector will continue to raise 90 per cent of its money from the third sector, and government won't touch that money. That's very helpful, thank you. Thank you. We move on to regulation and compliance. I wonder if you consider that there's a need to extend the annual close time for salmon fisheries. I asked that in light of the situation in the area north of which I represent, where the local trust, which covers rivers in Angus and Aberdeenshire, has written out to Anguars there asking them not to kill fish. I think that it's before June or July. They obviously feel that that sort of move is necessary. Whilst I would accept that there are different circumstances in different rivers, in a general sense, do you think that there is an argument for extending the close time? We recommend that, as part of the whole issue of issuing licences to kill salmon, that that issue is given thorough consideration. The system of closed seasons and closed days is quite anachronistic at the moment. If the scientific evidence is that killing salmon before June is not sustainable, it should be stopped, and it may well be a national issue, not just an issue for your constituent. Would you expect those decisions to be made locally specific to the individual rivers, or would you see a national move on that? I would see it as being primarily a national, because it's primarily the case that if killing salmon spring is unsustainable, that's probably a national picture. I think that the Government needs to have the flexibility in there to say that we could kill them on the west, but we can't kill them on the east for some sort of reason. Maybe I don't know some scientific reason why that's the case, so there needs to be that flexibility in the system. I think that your report found that the principles behind the system of protection orders was fundamentally sound but in need of a thorough overhaul. Could you expand on that for us? I think that we had some feedback from the one that we met stakeholders on the governance of how protection orders are issued, whether it needed a complete majority of everybody in that area to set them up, or if that could be a slightly smaller number of people, and whether there was a reasonable appeal system where people felt that they weren't getting what they expected out of the system or they hadn't been fairly represented. There were a few issues like that. I think that there's any others that you want to add to that. The way in which it's governed, making it more transparent and making it more open to appeal with the main points. The purpose of the protection order system should be to ensure that fish are sustained and be managed. It should not be to enable landowners to prevent people from fishing. That is the essential problem that we need to address in there. There was some evidence presented that suggested that the system of protection order was being used for a purpose that it wasn't intended. There seems to have been a long history of this in the River Tey. Shall I expand on that? It's not just in the River Tey. There was some pretty persuasive evidence from a number of locations that the protection order system was not being used for the purpose intended, and in particular that there was a confusion about the private and the public interest. The recommendations that we've made are essentially about bringing this back to what is the system for and focusing it down on that system, and then on top of that ensuring that there is robust ongoing scrutiny, including a proper complaint system, so that once you've put a protection order in place for good reason, and you then ensure that it continues to be operated according to good reason. That's helpful. Thank you. Mike Russell. I notice that your report comments upon the issue of water bailiffs, and you've referred to bailiffs in the evidence that you gave on the issue of rod licences. Police Scotland indicated that they thought that the powers of water bailiffs were not being substantially used in the way that they used to be used in any case, and that's evidence that the committee obviously has, that Police Scotland felt that they were involved much more in enforcement. Is there other grounds for restricting the role of water bailiffs, clarifying that role, because there has been, although many water bailiffs do a good job, there has been in the past some spectacular bad practice by water bailiffs using powers which many people felt they should not have? We've spent quite a lot of time on this one. It is a bizarre thing in a way that we have this sort of separate police force for fish, and I'm not entirely sure you would start from here. However, we didn't, in fact, encounter really persuasive evidence to suggest that the system should be scrapped. The system is potentially fit for purpose. Our view is that, and this I hope comes through in the recommendations, is that the issue is about accountability and supervision, rather than whether or not you should have a separate system. I think you can have a debate about whether, and it's an interesting one that can be had by government with Police Scotland about whether you want a separate system. If you're going to have a separate system, it's got to be accountable and it's got to be properly supervised and it's got to be proper scrutiny, it's got to be proper complaint systems. At the moment, the warranting of bailiffs is done at a local level by an unaccountable body. That needs to be brought under democratic control. At the moment, the complaint system doesn't appear to work, and part of the reason why it doesn't work is because the complaint system is also not particularly accountable, so there needs to be a proper complaint system and there needs to be associated with that proper appraisal CPD and all the rest of it. But if you put all those things in place, the system will work and, in our view, will work fine. Whether you should have a separate system, we didn't really go there. There's an opportunity in here to rethink how things are done, and that's always welcome. If you take the example, for example, of the swearing in of special constables by Loch Llywodraeth Cymru National Park, for example, rangers of special constables, which Jane will know about, or if she doesn't, it wasn't that distant from her own national park, that is one possible model where you could have people who are given powers that are understood. Another one is it might be an opportunity to strengthen the system of wildlife crime officers. The third thing that I think we should be mindful of, and I'd be interested in your reflection on this, as you and Jane particularly know this in the past, is that there is, in the environment, a tendency for some organisations to see themselves as enforcing the law, although they do not necessarily have any warrant so to do, and that has caused considerable tension in environmental, particularly in the issue of wildlife crime. It would be interesting your reflection on that. I would have thought the opportunity to align this with the police force was a good opportunity. Yes, I am no expert, I'm afraid, but what you say seems to make perfect sense. But I go back to what Andrew was saying, the more you make sure that the current system is made accountable and is therefore trusted and respected, and alongside that there has to be a well-structured training and continuous professional development set of arrangements. So the stronger you make those arrangements and the more people trust them, then the less of a hold that the other sort of policing I think has, the sort that you were describing. Okay. Given the remit and the focus and all the rest of it, we focused on is this thing working and what needs to improve in relation to fisheries, because that's what we were doing. I think if I were sitting in your seat, I would want to think about, and I'm not, it's not for me to tell you, but there clearly is a question in here about whether it is wise for Scotland to have the current system or whether we shouldn't actually think, well actually if you had a blank sheet of paper what would you do here and then come at it from that point of view? But that would have taken us well beyond our remit and the other. Okay, thank you. Dave Topson. Good morning to the panel. Just to follow on from the point that Mike raised there and following the discussion that we had with Police Scotland when they were before us some weeks ago, your report suggests that there's a little more than modest reform required in relation to the water bail-off system. I take your point about powers and accountability and scrutiny and complaint systems and so on. My first two years that I spent in Lewis were spent in Stornoway jail. I hastened to add that was the office that the council gave me when I first went over there to work. One of the things that I witnessed was the police burning salmon nets that they had lifted and confiscated out of the shore. I've had evidence given to me and there's two sides to all of those things of water bail-offs up in Cathness, cutting the leader ropes of nets that were left in the water. The netsmen would claim that the nets were left in the water because it was too dangerous for them to go in and lift them. The water bail-offs went in and they cut the ropes, which then let the nets drift. Really, shouldn't they have lifted those nets because letting those nets drift, there may well be fish in them already, they can catch other fish, they'll kill fish, they could get caught in the propellers of boats, it could lead to dangerous situations, so if it was safe enough for the nets to be lifted, why didn't the bail-offs lift the nets, take them ashore and dispose of them rather than just cutting leader ropes? Those are bail-offs using current powers. If what the police Scotland were telling us is right and I have no reason to doubt it that most of the time bail-offs don't use their current powers, then why leave them with those powers that allow them to do things like that? It would be tantamount to a couple of policemen or woman stopping you and finding your car was unroadworthy and then taking the wheels off and leaving it at the edge of the road. That's really what those bail-offs were doing and they were doing it quite legally, I believe. I think that there is an issue around that that we need to look at. We need to tighten up on accountability, scrutiny, complaints systems, but we also need to look at the actual specific power that are given to the bail-offs. I think that it was just to make that comment and to get any further comment from yourself on that. I'm aware of the case that you alluded to. It does seem to me that the fundamental question in that particular case is where is the robust, accountable, complaints mechanism to assess all that and make proper recommendations? We received very little evidence to suggest that the powers themselves are the problem. The evidence that we received suggested that the main problem is the exercise of those powers rather than the powers and therefore it is about complaining, scrutiny, appraisal, development, but you may be and I think you are suggesting something that is different from the evidence that we received was that actually maybe the power is the problem and if that is the case it undoubtedly should be part of what's reviewed. If we didn't get that from many people. Thank you. We'll explore that with the minister and with the panel next week, no doubt. Move on to the ideas of access to fishing and employment, which hopefully be the developmental part of your report, which Sarah Boyack wants to read on. Thank you very much, convener. I was wanting to follow up some of the points that were made earlier about angling for all and how that would be led. You've previously talked about the age profile of angling. You didn't mention gender. That was interesting. However, I was thinking about the whole issue of promotion. How do you promote that? The review that was done in 2008 identified that there isn't sufficient information access online. Do you see the unit as being responsible fed into by the local fishing expertise that there is? It's come back to the point about the conflict between promoting access to the sport and making sure that you've got the right resource. That conflict has been picked up about salmon stocks in particular and how you might maybe promote more trout or pike fishing. We did look at the gender profile as well and, as I'm sure you're aware, it's almost all male. It's not something that a lot of women get involved in at the moment, which we identified as an issue as well, as well as the age profile. I think rather than seeing the national unit as being responsible necessarily for all of the information, what we were focusing more on was this notion of a number of bodies getting together to develop an angling for all programme, which would include improving information for people, so not necessarily making that a responsibility of the national unit, but trying to get those bodies that are already promoting angling to do that more holistically and hopefully by joining together more comprehensively. I think we're just going to be slightly careful here that we came across some examples, particularly in West Central Scotland, of very, very good voluntary led initiatives to bring young people into this sport, to make it more socially inclusive, to bring all the kind of self-confidence and all the rest of the self-esteem benefits and all the rest of it. So there is some extremely good work being done out there by the third sector with a bit of government support, but not a government led. I think what we concluded was that this is a classic case where the third sector is probably the best way of driving it. Government should catalyze, should facilitate, should support, but it shouldn't lead, the third sector should lead. The sport at the moment is very fragmented. You've got the course fishing body, you've got, I can't remember how many, quite a lot. So we make some quite strong recommendations about the need for a lead national body, and Sport Scotland, that sport is not the only sport where there's a problem there either. Lead national body, everyone together, coordinated programme. The carrot is the rod licence issue. If you can get everyone together and really wanting to do something and really supporting, government can facilitate by bringing, as Jane indicated, significant amounts of money, and it would take significant amounts of money, which in the current environment is not going to come out of departmental expenditure limits, it's just not going to be there. So there's huge potential here to do something really important for this country, and to do something particularly for the urban disadvantaged. Huge potential. It needs people to come together, and we've suggested maybe the central role of government here is the catalytic role, it's pulling things together, maybe bringing it together under some sort of independent share, but get people together, put them round a table and try and get something to really happen here. So we need a strategy to be able to move forward, and the resources to actually deliver on it once you've pulled it together. I was thinking about, there's an issue about access locally, there's an issue that you've just picked up there about knowledge, and about encouraging young people to get involved. In terms of the tourism opportunities, you've talked about what's normal in other countries in terms of paying for access. What kind of opportunities do you think there are if we were to have a proper strategy and to resource it and explore it in terms of local job creation? The central issue is about information, there's no shortage of fisheries potential, so a central part of any integrated programme, fishing for all or whatever you want to call it, has to be a national web-based portal that you can go to and say, I'm on holiday, I want to go fishing, what do I have to do? That's essential, it's not there at the moment. If that happens, we haven't attempted to quantify it, I don't think we're really qualified to quantify the economic potential in there, but what we do know is that there is huge overcapacity or underutilisation, a huge underused capacity, particularly in relation to trout in particular, massive underutilised trout potential, but also species which historically have not been of great economic value, pikes, one of the most obvious ones, actually becoming highly sought after now across Europe and yet in Scotland it is being exploited but not in an economically efficient or productive manner. It's interesting that we came across one area where we were told that the pike fishery was worth more than the salmon fishery if it was properly developed, so I can't quantify for you but I'm satisfied that there's a big economic as well as social prize here. Can I just add one other thing to that? We saw that diversification as also being very important for the industry, particularly in light of, for example, climate change and its potential impact on other species that are popular in Scotland, so that diversification of different quarry species could also be powerful for Scotland's future use of fish as a tourist attraction and also as a recreational home. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. We've had a good round of the subject. The report has given us plenty to think about. It looks as though it's the kind of way forward, which, when honoured into an organised fashion, we can see some real future for wild fisheries in this country, which is a very optimistic kind of note. Indeed, it was well overdue that we got a clear picture of what the industry and the recreation is like at this moment, so thank you very much, witnesses, for your efforts and your attendance, and we'll no doubt be in touch with any questions for you. We'll have a short suspension so that we can change over to the next panel. Thank you. We'll continue with the Rural Affairs Committee meeting today. Agenda item 4 on the Community Empowerment Scotland Bill. The fourth item is to take evidence on the Government's amendments to the Community Empowerment Scotland Bill on the Crofting Community right to buy. We're joined this morning by a variety of stakeholders, and perhaps if we get the panel to introduce themselves in a sentence or two, we have a very short time in which to do so. Derek Flynn, you're first. Just say who you are, please. Derek Flynn, I'm a retired crofting lawyer. Recently I've been a co-administrator of what we call the Crofting Law Sump, collecting the problems of crofting law and trying to find solutions through the crofting legislation group. Thank you, and then we have Sarah Boyack, and then we have... I'm Gordon Cumming, I'm the land manager for the North Harus Trust. Pleased to meet you, thank you. I'm Plaudia Beamish, Suscotman MSP, and Shadow Minister for Environment and Climate Change. Thank you. Duncan Burd, slister and private practice on the Isle of Skye, here to represent the Law Society. Today I sit on the Rural Affairs Committee. Thank you. Dave Thompson, MSP for Skye, Lochaber and Ben. Thank you, as well as MSP for Argyllun Pryd. Alex Ferguson, MSP for Galloway and West Dumfries, to whom crofting law is a complete mystery. Peter Peacock, I do some policy work for Community Land Scotland. Jimmy Hume, MSP for South Scotland. Sandy Murray, I'm a crofter from Sutherland, and I'm chairman of the NFUS Crofting Alliance Committee. Angus MacDonald, MSP for Falkirk East, well-known for its lack of crofts. Susan Walker, I'm the convener of the Crofting Commission, the regulator of crofting. Graham Day, MSP for Angus South. I'm Rob Gibson, I'm the convener of the committee and I'm the MSP for Caithness, Sutherland and Ross, where there's quite a lot of crofting of various intensities and sorts. Thank you all for attending this morning. We have quite a lot of questions for you, but we don't necessarily need everybody to answer every question in order for us to get through this and get to the core of the matters. I'll just kick off by asking if any members feel that stakeholders have been consulted enough about what is proposed at the present time. Are you satisfied that the consultation that's taken place is sufficient to meet this particular set of amendments just now? I think that we take the view that this goes back to the predecessor committee of yours, which commissioned independent research on the land format. Out of that came the issues that are now being consulted on about the need for change. Although, arguably, that would all have been better if part 3 stuff had been part of the community empowerment bill at the beginning, that isn't the case. We are very encouraged, nonetheless, that the Government is trying to make the changes that it is making. I would encourage the committee to be generally quite relaxed about the changes because they are heading in the right direction. Our members have been consulted by the Scottish Government in terms of written consultation, but there are also a series of meetings held to which our members have invited and got the opportunity to have their say. We are perfectly happy in that sense with what's happened. I was involved in the post-legislative report, looking specifically at the crafting matters and I think that the matters raised are being dealt with. Anyone else? No, we got started there with a general approval for the level of consultation. Graham Day, on the amendment. I want to be clear that the panel feels that the amendments have lodged fully and appropriately addressed the concerns that were raised during the consultation process. Just to get a feel to what extent the proposed changes will allow more crofting communities to exercise their right to buy. If there are further amendments needed at this point, perhaps to bring in a mediation service, which I think has been mentioned. Right. Anybody want to talk about that? What about North Arras? Do you know your experiences? You've got the right to buy, you've applied it and all the rest of it. Well, the North Arras Trust has been with us with the community since 2003 and it didn't go through it as a community right to buy. It was a sure, it was a voluntary effort. The amendments that have been put forward on the whole, we felt that they were good, we were happy with them and we felt that they were fair, so as far as the consultation side of it has gone, we think it's gone very well. On the second point, first of the mediation services, we've been, Community Health Scotland has been arging for some time that it would be helpful to put beyond doubt that Scottish ministers have got the power to facilitate mediation between potential purchasers and owners and that's born of a bitter experience of what has happened in a number of purchasers and we are aware from conversations with some of the agencies that support community groups that they feel they have not got the power currently, not the standing that they would like to see mediation facilitated, they actually don't have the legal power to do so and it's not clear to me whether Scottish ministers actually have got legal power to do so and I would have hoped that somewhere around the provisions, some simple power for ministers to be able to facilitate mediation when requested by either of the parties and both parties were agreeable to that would be a very helpful thing to have just to clarify the law. The reason that we are anxious about this in a sense is that we don't want to have communities resorting to very complex law on every occasion and it seems to us much more satisfactory if there can be negotiated settlements from an aspiration to buy land and there's quite a lot of evidence of that actually in the western isles in particular right now so it's making sure there is a framework for that to happen. Our chairman has been involved actively for a good number of months in trying to help resolve the park situation by trying to bring the parties together at their request but frankly that's been helpful and it's taking the process forward. We are not skilled in mediation techniques and it just seems to us too haphazard to leave it to the chance that one individual is acceptable to both parties. It would be far better to have some kind of clear power and I think that would add help to the whole situation so that's on the mediation services. On your first point about the scope of the amendments is there anything else we would want? I guess there's always something else you would want but frankly we're very happy that what's here because it identifies the core issue so having said that I'm sure you're going to come to this once you get into the detail there's quite a lot of detailed implications that it's probably worth teasing out today but generally speaking nothing in addition that we're looking for at this stage but there are fine details that we need to thrash out. Sandy Murray I think on the mediation side of it I would support what Peter is saying that you know to have somebody that's able to come in and mediate it saves a lot of arguments in the long run and also support there's quite a few bits that need to be teased out. Could I suggest that back about the mediation things now that the Scottish Mediation Service really perhaps ought to have as remit looked at with regard to these agricultural matters or is that too formalised a process that none you would envisage? I'm not familiar with that particular service although as it happened I met somebody in Edinburgh on Friday who is involved in what now appears to be a kind of marketplace almost for mediation services there are people who are highly skilled in these things and it would just seem to me that provided ministers had the power to facilitate that they can then bring in whatever services are appropriate and if that required changing the terms of or the remit of any existing statutory mediation system well so be it it's to bring the skills to bear on the situation. I think you made a very good point. Could the mediation skills exist? Does the knowledge base to mediate and the crofting sphere exist? It's said that there are only three people that understand crofting law. One's mad, one's dead and nobody can remember who the third one is. Actually that was said of local government finance to be fair but that's it. I think that in any given situation where there's a dispute between two parties there are particular skills that mediators have irrespective of the technical detail associated with that. I know that the technical detail could be bought in. I know in the case of Park there is a huge amount of technical detail but people have had to bring in lawyers and others to help with that. It's actually getting the parties together and talking and allowing a resolution to creating an outcome and resolving difficulties is a key thing. We'll move on to the legal structure of a community body question from Claudia Beamish. Could I ask the people around the table today if they have any comments on the legal structure of community bodies and at the moment just for the record although people here today will know a CCB must be accompanied limited by guarantee and amendments to section 71 broaden the base of the legal organisations that could include skeos and bencoms and any other body I quote as may be prescribed subject to to the requirements unquote. The the expanded note states that part three will be bought into alignment by proposed amendments to part two community right to buy and that part three a we certainly are getting into the detail here but I think it's important to to to get this part three a the proposed new right to buy abandoned neglected land without a willing seller of the 2003 act. So really the question is for the panel today whether the crofting community body section 71 provides enough protection against personal liability for its trustees that's the first question and reassurance to those entering into contracts with it and more broadly the flexibility for the situations that a crofting community body might experience. I have some experience of being a member of a community trust and we did go through a part two registration of interest. I think that the added flexibility is useful. You do have different kinds of bodies being created such as kicks for example. I know that it can take quite a long time to set up a skeo and you can't officially become that body until Oscar has approved your body as a registered body so I think adding that flexibility is good. Any director who takes on the position with a community trust must understand their responsibilities and there is a good support system there through the HIE land unit for example to advise people on their responsibilities. Personally I think that it looks robust but has flexibility. We must make sure that whichever type of body is set up that we maintain a majority of crofter representatives and crofters on the boards of these organisations. I hope that there are no further points in there, I hope that they will speak up now. Do you know that on the specifics of skeos and amend forms? Yes, yes, yes. Is there another point that arises in part of the detail that might come to that? Please do. If you look at the amendments before you on page three of those amendments, there is a difference between what crofters will count for all of this as to whether they are on the crofting register or whether you are going to come to that point. In that case then we will move on to the removal of the provision for auditing of accounts. Removal of provision for auditing of accounts section 71 subsection 3c repeals the requirement for community bodies to formally audit their accounts but the explanatory note says that it is still required to make proper arrangements for financial management. Obviously, the first part of my question, I mean, do the witnesses here today welcome the removal of the provision for auditing of accounts? Somebody nodded there, Peter Peacock nodded, anyone else? Susan Walker nodded and so did Gordon. Take that as read. That is absolutely fine. Therefore, the second part is obviously the explanatory note, as I said, still required to make proper arrangements for financial management. So it would be interesting to see what the witnesses thought about how you can develop transparency to make sure that what is invested is invested in a proper manner and if there are adequate safeguards to ensure that that does happen. Susan Walker. Perhaps if I just speak again from the point of view of a part 2, a body that is set up to be compliant with part 2 of the legislation, it requires that we must get our accounts independently scrutinised and if you are a registered charity you have to produce annual accounts. So it seems inconsistent that part 3 bodies are treated differently from part 2 bodies so whatever level is required for part 2 bodies should be the same as what is required for part 3 bodies, which I think that this does equalise them then. Thank you very much for that. So amending the definition of crofting community, Alec Ferguson. I must apologise for interrupting Peter Peacock in full flow, but I've spent two days trying to get my head around this question and I didn't want my moment of glory to be taken away from me. We'll find out how well you've managed to get your head around them now. To Amir Llandr, you would have thought that the definition of a crofting community would be quite a simple matter, but it is clearly not. My understanding is that subsection 7 is going to amend the definition of a crofting community in order to capture more crofters who are excluded by existing legislation. My understanding is that it is recognised that the existing definition of a crofting community may not include all those who would consider themselves to be part of a crofting community. So I can understand the desire to amend this to bring in more people, but the point that Peter Peacock was referring to was that I again understand that some UNROC to occupy a crofters are registered on the registers of Scotland's crofting register, but the amendment will not include those who are on the crofting commission's register of crofters. Without wanting to get into the question of why on earth there are two registers, various people in evidence to us have highlighted the possible difficulties that might be created in trying to bring the two together or somehow simplify the terminology. My question for anybody who would like to comment is, do you foresee problems that might arise with the sole use of the registers of Scotland's crofting register? If there are problems, how you might see them being remedied? The term crofting community does pose problems. There is a real conflict because it is defined differently in two sets of acts. We must look for a resolution of that, but I do not think that it is in this bill or in this act. The matter that you raised about the owner-occupier crofters only being involved if they are entered in the crofting register, but not in the register of crofters. That is false. It should include those in the register of crofts. To become an owner-occupier crofter, you have to intimate your position to the crofting commission. Having intimated your position as an owner-occupier crofter to the crofting commission, you would, in fact, be entered in the register of crofts held by the commission as an owner-occupier crofter. The problem is that it does not actually say that in the act, but given that in the act, and I am talking about the Crofters Act, given that in the Crofters Act to become an owner-occupier crofter, you have to tell the crofting commission, they hold that information and one place they would hold it would be in the register of crofts. That should include not just in the crofting register, but it should say, or the register of crofts. You believe that a combination of registers is the right way to approach this rather than just so use of one. Because putting it into the crofting register is still a hurdle, it is an unnecessary one, and it would produce an unnecessary distinction between one set of owner-occupier crofters and another. Thank you very much. Can I just make a point of clarification? Presumably, because we are moving to a map-based register, eventually we are going to have a situation where the crofting commission register, as it is at the moment, which is just a list, will become redundant eventually. I look forward to that. I think that we would strongly support the general point that Derek Flynn has made, that it does not seem clear at all why owner-occupiers are not within the register of crofts could be counted for this purpose. There is probably some deep technicality here, because there is an implication in what is said in the explanatory notes that ministers are taking a regulatory power and might change this in due course, but maybe they can explain that. In the outcome ought to be that both registers, both for tenants and owner-occupiers ought to be in play. If I can just explain that in the Crofting Act it says that the commission has a duty to keep a register of crofts, but it only lists that we have to list tenants. It has not been added in that we also have a duty to keep owner-occupier crofters, that is why. Derek Flynn said that he has a duty to tell us, and we certainly register them in the register of crofts. If he only used the crofting register, I think that there are currently 800 crofters listed on that, but we have over 13,000 crofters, so he would be severely limiting the number of owner-occupier crofters who would ever be registered as a crofter. By recollection, when those matters were dealt with in the last Crofting Act, I think it could take up to 80 years for the crofting register to be complete, so that's why you need the register of crofts as well. Hence, Derek Flynn's very helpful remarks. I like Ferguson continuing. All right, we move on to the lovely subject of croft land mapping. I had another point on this on definition of the crofting community, which is the fact that the proposals appear to have removed the residency requirement. I wondered why and whether you could get an instance where absentee crofters could be influencing the outcome of their community, despite the fact that they didn't live there. I must say that I don't understand well enough how the ballot works. Is there a ballot of all crofters, or do all crofters have to comply with the residency requirement that is general upon the whole community? If there is a ballot of all crofters, you could get absentee crofters influencing the outcome of what happens in a community. In your own submission to the consultation, you suggested the question about the 32-kilometre rule and so on. Are there particular words there that you think should be amended in the community empowerment bill, as we are going along, to clarify that point and about absentees? Yes. It was in the 2003 act, only it referred to over 16 kilometres, but that has now been changed for the 2010 act. I just wondered why that had been removed. I don't understand enough about the ballot arrangements, but if the ballot arrangements are that all crofters are balloted, then I think that it's really important that that's reintroduced. I think that the point that it's important that absentees should not control what's happening on the land, and we should bring the land reform measurement of 16 kilometres into line with the crofters act of 32 kilometres. In other words, we can ask the minister about that and clarify that point. We are moving on to mapping. Section 73 deals with croft land mapping. Do you agree that the removal of the mapping requirements, the detailed mapping requirements that have been suggested, will make it simpler? There is a problem of balancing mapping requirements with facilitating the crofting community right to buy. The pipe, the dykes and ditches and that sort of thing. The way that I looked at it was that at the point where you are trying to buy something, we're talking about a cadastral type map. We're not talking about the detailed kind of map that's required when you're gaining ownership. In which case, if that's so, would we find some sort of way to explain why it is that a simplified form of mapping is something that is required in the first instance? The transfer of ownership of a highland crofting estate is a massive problem because it tends to be a jigsaw puzzle with lots of pieces removed. If it's done under the Sazine system, it was merely a transfer of a bundle of rits, but now it's all to be mapped. No highland estate would transfer to another landlord showing every pipe and dyke. It's quite improper that a community should be asked to map those things. The requirement should be at the level that the land register requires to change ownership from one person to another. At that stage, the land register has to check that the Sazine's title is good enough to go on the land register. If you can get a plan to that quality, it seems that that would be a sufficient say for a crofter community by it. Anyone else want to comment on that? How would support the direct saying that to have an over complicated map on having to work out where all the dykes and water courses and things are in the first instance is just very cumbersome on the community? I think that this is the biggest single prize of the changes that are being proposed because we know from experience that this is a tortuous process and virtually impossible to meet and leaving open all sorts of opportunities for challenge on fine technical detail that you didn't get a dyke exactly right or a sewer or whatever. Removing that is of itself very important and very welcome. That will help to simplify matters. There are other matters, however, that are being introduced to this section that you might want to come on to. There are also other equally onerous matters within the form that has to be filled up as part of other provisions in this section, which again you might want to come on to. I want to finish off this point because the submission from Scottish land and estates suggests that it isn't unduly onerous to detail things like pipes and so on. For the record, unfortunately, they couldn't be with us on the panel today, but they just think that it should stay the same by the looks of that. It sounds to me as though the evidence from people here at this stage of applying that people around this panel have already stated it. I suspect that, originally—I don't know this, but I suspect that, originally, this is perhaps something that's been picked up from a compulsory purchase set of arrangements that would apply to urban areas generally. If you're talking about a site the size of this room, then it would be possible to identify sewers, et cetera, trains and so on. If you're talking about a 40,000-acre crofting estate where actually there is dispute going back generations about where actual boundaries between crafts are and the topography has changed around dikes and so on, this becomes virtually impossible to meet. It really is. If we really want to make progress on this, it's absolutely essential that we do take these requirements out. I'm glad that's what the Government is proposing. We have to have a situation to set out in regulations to ensure that a fair balance is made between the rights of landowners and of the crofting communities. On the basis of that, do you want to develop the points that you were making a little earlier there? I was referring to evidence that was submitted by John Randall from Park, who is the only human being who's been through all of this, so he understands it intimately. He was pointing to not just the requirement on the face of the bill about sewers, pipes, drains, et cetera, that we've just discussed, but any applicant has to fill in a prescribed form. That form itself requires other things, such as a list of all post-codes within the O.S. one-kilometre grid squares included, and a full list of all those eligible to vote in the ballot, including the distance away from relevant townships and so on. That's contained in the regulation. The only point that I want to make is that I know that that's not strictly speaking the subject for your committee's consideration, but if we're going to really simplify this, we also need to address those things in the regulation, but also there are new… On our stage 1 report, that issue, so that's one thing that we've picked up already. But just before you move on, Mike Russell… I just want to echo a point that Derek made, because I think that it's something that we need to reflect upon and use more widely across the consideration of this piece of legislation, which is that there is a danger in this legislation of constantly reinventing the wheel, another way of doing things. If it is suitable on the registers to have the definition, the mapping of the croft, in a way that the title can be transferred, then we shouldn't invent another way of doing it, because the two will be incompatible. It may produce great work for lawyers at their stages, but it will be incompatible with the ease of which we allow land to be transferred, and that's what this is about. So I think it's extremely important that we have a single standard, and if a standard exists, that is a standard by which we should continue to operate unless there is a problem with it. I do remember from my involvement in this issue of a long period of time a disputant in Becula, which is probably still going on, which has originated from the fact that the line on the map was drawn with a pen that was too thick, thus Derek remembers the case. I can see there are probably others. It is really important that we have simplicity in this. We don't need any comments then, other than that at the moment. Peter, do you go on then? The other point that I want to highlight is that there are new requirements being added in, as well as those deletions. After subsection 5, 5za, it's including the identification of the owner of the land, any creditor to the standard security in the land, the tenancy of land over which the tenant has an interest and persons entitled to any sporting interest. Those are very onerous requirements in our view. In a sense, there is a real danger here that you remove onerous requirements on mapping, but you introduce other onerous requirements of a different kind. It is not clear to me why that is required, because I don't think that that would be required in a private sale, so it is not clear to me why you should require it in a sale to a crofting community body. I just want to flag that with the committee. We are quite concerned about that. I have received just this morning a couple of emails from members of community land Scotland who are in crofting communities, and they reckon that it is very difficult to meet. I will pass that on to the committee so that you have got it in writing. In several respects, I think that this is very onerous. I just want to alert the committee that we would rather not see that requirement. It is not clear why it is required now, when it was not required before. Obviously, ministerial discretion and so on is something that we need to explore in terms of that, or why exactly it is there. Mike Russell. Can I pursue that with other people on the table just to get some further clarity on this? It seems to me that the point that Peter has made is very important, that if it is not possible for those involved attempting to buy out to identify creditor and a standard security over the land, which could be, I suspect, difficult, might not be possible to identify everybody who has sporting interests in the land, then the burden of that falls upon those who are attempting to buy out as opposed to those who are selling. Can I have some views on that, because it does seem to me that that is a major obstacle and one that could derail potential purchases? Anyone want to commend us now? This is knowledge that should be in the hands of the owner of the land. I identify the owner of the land as one of the requirements. If it were left to a purchaser in the normal system, would you expect a purchaser to find out all about creditors and tenants? You would expect that information to be provided. At worst, you should only leave the purchaser to find out what is available on public registers. Could the burden not be put upon the owner of the land to provide that information? It would seem that that would be perfectly feasible. It seems to me that that would be perfectly normal. I agree that, first of all, one of the examples that has been given to me this morning by one of our members is where it was not possible to identify the owner to try and identify that. There were four owners in this particular instance listed, three of them were fictitious, and this was being a front for a company laundering money if it turned out or something to that effect. Unsavory character, shall I put it that way. Therefore, you would fail at the first hurdle if you couldn't identify the owner, let alone meet the other things. I just don't think that we should underestimate how difficult this is. If the requirement was to remain and a community used their best endeavours to try and find that but couldn't simply find that, then that should not of itself prevent an application from proceeding, it would seem to me. It's quite important to require amendment in some way, either to put the burden on the owner or and or, as it was, it's and or, in circumstances in which the best endeavour of the purchaser would be required, but there might be circumstances that would not be possible. Is that what we're saying? I think so. You don't want to go with best endeavours. You want only reasonable endeavours. You may want to further refine the owner of the land and any creditor of a stand security, as may be disclosed in either the season's register or the land register, so that you're locking down who should be within the public knowledge and avoiding these fraudsters that are out there. Always delighted to get free legal advice. Let's split it, thank you very much. OK, I think that point's been well made but Susan wants to go. Just one additional point, I agree with everything that's been said and that's what our submission says that it should be reasonable endeavours and that only those things are already in public record, but I think it's really important to also not underestimate the fact that this could create a loophole for a landlord, that they simply set up a private arrangement with a relative and it could be then said that you had failed to list this person in your application and therefore your application fails. One strong point, crofting is different. Crofting law is different. It's the area where landlords don't have to do anything and putting the duty on the landlord to produce information would mean we would make no progress at all. We have to consider that the landlord might be a company registered in Andorra that never applies to any correspondence and so if there is to be a duty to provide information it can only be that that can be reasonably acquired and it must be from public registers. So those who have rights to that are listed should have them registered somewhere or otherwise they cannot be identified. So what Duncan Burd is saying with reasonable applies to what's on the public register, I think we've got that clearly. Public notices of applications, an interesting one on the ground, yes? Angus MacDonald. I'm just to briefly explore section 73, the public notice of application. In section 73, subsection 4, it replaces the requirement to advertise an application in the Edinburgh Gazette and a local newspaper in the area and the explanatory note states that the amendment allows greater flexibility and allows more appropriate forms of advertisement to be used according to individual circumstances of the case, which I presume is welcome given, as we've heard recently, the burden already existing on crofters regarding various public notices. Is everyone content with that amendment? Let's move on from there to identification of owner tenants and certain creditors. I'm sorry, I wasn't in for that question. I just asked the question, it was good to ask. I think we've probably covered that. Yes, I think we've covered it for you. Yes, but if we're happy that there aren't any other bits in what you had there, then we will move on to the ballot procedure, which is Sarah Boyack's. Very much, convener. I really want to explore the issues around section 75, which lets ministers make regulations regarding the conduct of the ballot, which is anticipated to be undertaken by the crofting community body. The explanatory note sets out how that might work. It particularly includes the suggestion that the crofting community body is liable for the ballot but that, in circumstance, it might seek reimbursement for the cost of conducting that ballot from ministers. It gives ministers quite a degree of flexibility in the procedures here. Having looked through the different responses here, there are quite a number of different views about this, about whether it should be required. Some people are quite happy about it, others aren't. There's a suggestion or a question that I would like to pose as to whether the requirement of having a ballot is strictly necessary or not. It's been suggested by one of those giving evidence, Malcolm Coom, that it's not strictly necessary if you look at the ECHR in relation to property provision. He suggests that that's been confirmed by Lord President Gill in the recent park case. There's a question about the requirement to have a ballot. His other comment is that he's of the view that it makes the act more bureaucratic and therefore makes it harder for a community to attempt to benefit from its provisions and therefore we should consider that very carefully. I'm keen to get the views of witnesses on that. I'm also keen to ask the question, the in-principle question, as to whether the ballot provision should be different for other community groups wanting to buy land. Is there a real reason why that needs to be different and we need to have different sets of legislation? I'm really keen to get the views of witnesses because we have had quite a range of views on that. I'll take the point about the ballot first and whether it's necessary. We think that ballots are an important part of the whole process because it confirms that there is community consent to a proposition. Whether it is required legally or not, which may be Malcolm Coombe's point, I think that pragmatically it would be very difficult for a community not to have a ballot because how could you ever prove that you had a consent for the proposition that you are wanting to purchase the land? We think that it's a necessary and important part of establishing that. Having a dialogue with a community because you've got to have a ballot, you've got to persuade people that your arguments are strong, your business case is strong and so on. I think that it's an important thing that we would not wish to see removed. That said, it doesn't seem clear to us why there should be a difference between the part 2 provisions that are proposed in the community empowerment bill where the Scottish Government would take now responsibility for organising the ballot and paying for it and why that should not exist in the part 3 provisions. It's not clear why there should be a distinction. I accept that what the Scottish Government is proposing by way of allowing a crofting community to apply to have their costs met is a helpful flexibility over where we are at present, so to that extent I welcome that. However, that doesn't overtake the rather more fundamental point why would crofting communities be different in this respect than others. The other thing that I would add to that is that when you're getting into a part 3 purchase, you're talking about the potential of expropriating land against the wishes of the seller. It seems to me that in those circumstances it's very clear that the conduct of any ballot that might help to precipitate that action is seen to be above board. It seems to me that the Government taking responsibility for organising that rather than the community would help to remove any potential dispute that the ballot was in some way not conducted properly. I think that there's a question of conduct and propriety in that sense and assuring people that the conduct has been appropriate. However, there's also the question of why would you have a different set of arrangements for part 3 than part 2. That just doesn't seem right to me. I would fully support what Peter says and that's what we would be suggesting as well, that it's brought into line with the community right to buy. I think that it does show that the support is there for the buy-out when it's not a willing seller. Any other points that people need to make? I understand the demonstrating that there is genuine community support. I think that that's quite a good, clear principle. I suppose that I was wondering why crofting communities would have to pay to conduct the ballot. The proposed amendment specifies that in certain circumstances the crofting community might seek reimbursement. I was just trying to think what the circumstances would be. It would be much clearer to have the same provision that would be properly conducted so that you would know that there was a standard being applied and a good principle, your point about propriety. I can see that. I'm thinking that if the ministers don't want to change this, they're trying to tease out what would the circumstances be that would allow some groups to have the ballot paid for and others not, because it seems to be introducing a new set of tests. I can't see why you would do that. I would agree with all that. It's not clear to me why you would treat people differently. When you're coming to some basic democratic expression here, it's really quite important that the rules are applied consistently. To me, points of the Government are simply accepting. Given that they're accepting the responsibility for the ballots under part 2, I think that they should apply that equally to part 3. That would seem to me to have everything to commend it. The minister next week, and I'll be one of the questions without a doubt. The next thing we've got is about the rights by one crofting community body. Have there been conflicts in crofting communities between more than one body so far? I'm pretty sure that it was not Melneth or somewhere around that area, where one body applied to and by and then another one came in with an overlapping application. Right. It has happened, so maybe somebody in the Government has alerted the potential that it could elsewhere. Thank you. I thought about finding out about that. Reference to the Land Court, Dave Thomson? Just a small point, and it's to do with the Law Society's submission in relation to this about the list of persons who have a right to refer a question to the Land Court. The suggested amendments cover three of those that the owner entitled to sporting interests, the tenant and any other person entitled to sporting interests and so on. But the Law Commission in their submission suggested that a creditor and a standard security in relation to the land should also have this right of referral. Now, when we got evidence from Malcolm Coombe, he seemed to suggest that that might not always be a good thing. So I just want a wee bit of clarity, maybe, from Duncan Burd here on behalf of the Law Society, as to whether they still feel strongly—maybe the submission, I'm not sure of the dates when that's actually come out—whether they still feel strongly that creditors should have this right of reference or not. Everyone else seems to be agreed with what the amendments are saying, so I appreciate that. Duncan Burd. The Society of the View that keeps this piece of legislation in accordance with other legislation where a creditor in a standard security is notified of litigation and has the ability to enter appearance—one that you may or may not be familiar with is where a couple are divorcing and there's an argument over the House—the heritable creditor must be told about the action. From a practical point of view, they will never enter appearance, but the legislation states that they should be told about it because they do have a perceived financial interest in the outcome of the case. On a more technical basis, it ties in with the proposed amendment for section 73 that the five ZE lists the same four categories that the Society has identified, so again it's trying to bring continuity into the legislation. Are you happy with that? Anyone else want to comment? No. Okay, in that case we'll move on to valuation and Sarah Boyack's leading on that one again. Thank you, convener. It's a question really about the extension of the timing here from six to eight weeks. We had evidence from the Scottish Land and Estates who expressed concerns at the process. It's already a difficult issue, but to add another couple of weeks is not likely to help matters. Indeed, it could be more problematic where landlords are reluctant to sell and you get people deliberately delaying. So there was a question about the extension of this and I'm keen to ask that question. Do witnesses around the table have a view on this issue? Peter. We're generally in favour of extending these things to give just a little bit more time. Whether two weeks makes a material difference, you know, is arguable, make it 12 weeks if you wish. The general point is that it's moving in the right direction rather than making it more restrictive, it's making it more flexible. And ministers can also further extend that time if that is required or shown to be necessary. So we don't have a problem with that particular problem. Gordon Cumming. No, we felt there was no problem with it either as well. Again, as was mentioned, it's a problem if you're creating a system where people can keep extending the problem and extending the problem. But at the end of the day, if that administration time is required, then it's sensible to have it there. Abid Scotland in the States took an opposite view. I shall not make any judgment on that. But the longer the delay, the greater the detriment in both financial and potentially relationship terms between the owner and the crofting community body, clearly the balance of opinion here seems to be the opposite. Duncan Burd. I'll go off the piece here. As you know, I act in the park case. The difficulty that the landlord had was ensuring that information that he released to the valier would be kept confidential if the buy-out didn't go ahead. That has been a fundamental difficulty for valiers where they have approached landlords who are not willing to release information. 12 weeks is the society's preferred viewpoint, but looking at it from a personal point of view, the valiers need that. And when you've been at park for 12 years, what's 12 weeks? Okay, that point is well made. Thank you very much. Thinking about compensation, which might follow on, Graham Day. Thank you, convener. I'm Scotland in the States and the NFUS have questioned whether it's appropriate for ministers to assess compensation levels with SLE suggesting advice from experienced valiers should come into the process. I just wonder if the panel members have any concerns over the objectivity of ministers and their ability to determine appropriate levels of compensation in these sort of cases. Be careful how you answer that. Any minister says that ministers are our esteemable people of the highest quality, and therefore their judgment should be trusted. Absolutely. I mean, seriously, I mean, somebody in the entity has to make a decision on this, and ultimately, the democracy ministers have to take that responsibility, and they will have good advice to them from their officials, and there is a valuation process that lies behind all of this, so I don't think there's an issue of the sort that's been raised. Good. If that's the case, we'll look at the outcome of appeal to the land court then, as another issue. I'm going to speak to Donald. Yeah, with regard to section 92, the 2003 act currently allows the land court four weeks from the hearing date to give the reasons in respect of a valuation appeal, and the new amendments extend that timescale to eight weeks. Also, should that extended timescale not be sufficient, the land court is to notify all parties of the date in which it will provide a written decision. The explanatory note states that this should provide assurance to all parties of when the decision will be received. Initially, the call for evidence suggested recurring the provision requiring the land court to provide the reasons in writing, and it's this amendment that the majority of respondents focused on. Now, can I ask the panel if you're content with the amendment, as it currently stands, are you content that the land court has the flexibility to take a number of weeks before it rolls on an appeal? Derek Flynn. Well, after 30 years of appearing before the land court, I would hesitate to fix time limits at all. These seem to me to be for the court to decide, and perhaps contained in the rules of court. But what sanction is available to parties if the land court don't do what they're told in the act? There's no sanction here. If there's no result within the eight-week period and no information about when the written statement is going to come forward, will my friend the new chairman of the land court, Lord Mingenish, be hung drawn in quarter? What is it? It seems highly inappropriate that the crofting community right to buy should be a preferred use of the land court. That's my personal opinion after 30 years as a practitioner appearing before the court. The court is always in control of what it does. Being told to do something in 28 days requires a punishment if you don't do it within 28 days. So what is the sanction if they don't do this? You put that on the table for us. Anyone else want to comment? I suppose that generally we would rather the tighter the timescale, because you're trying to focus minds, but to be honest, whether it's four or eight weeks is not the greatest thing of importance, I don't think, so we were quite happy to live with this, even though we thought it was heading in the wrong direction, generally speaking. As Derek said, ultimately, even if the court don't meet the eight weeks, they are free not to meet it, and it's there for does the time limit in that sense really matter. The appeal is in respect of valuation, which is a fairly important part of this overall process, so it's keeping certainty for the parties, but presumably if the land court overrun the rate week period and they haven't put their hand up for an extension, does that mean that the status co-applies and the entire procedure collapses? That might be a question for Lord Gill in the first appeal. By putting a time limit in, you put something in the law that perhaps is not required. We have had recent experience of time difficulties. The land court issued a judgment just before Christmas on a commission case, and the commission has 28 days to appeal, but there was no time over the Christmas period for the commission to do much about it. The first meeting was after the 28-day period. If the chairman of the land court and two members are often a hearing in South East for four weeks, who is going to respond to this? Should it be one of the clerks in the office? It has to come back and say that this will be done later. It's a really strange process to me to put a time limit in the act requiring the court to do something. I think that there should be some time limit in there, but there could be an ability to apply for an extension to it. As long as the parties are kept aware of when the decision is going to be made, that's the important part. In a sense, advisory is what puts down the point that we need to have a reasonable time taken, but can we have a clause in there that sets a time limit without the additions that you have already said? I think that this is a problem that appears in the Crofters Act, where you tell the commission that they've got to do certain things. However, there is a policy plan that has to be approved. That's where those things should be laid. Likewise, how the land court goes about its business should be within the rules and regulations of the land court, not in the act that can't do anything about it if it goes wrong. It will just cause a legal problem that will go into courts and stay there. Sandy is suggesting, if we put it in other words, that it's to try and focus minds. You would assume that they would try to focus, but if they're in South East, how are they going to focus on that particular problem? They're not going to focus. So we're going to have to ask the minister about that one as well. Okay, thank you very much for that. I've got two points about process now, first of all, and outcomes. We've had a short timescale to deal with these amendments, but because there's been a general consensus that they're moving in the right direction, I think that we've been able to cope with that in this particular, whilst wishing it to have been the case that they were consulted on at the beginning. I thank the witnesses for the efforts that they've made and indeed the clarity that's been brought to this so that we can pin down the minister in one or two points, but in the general recognition that, for once simplification and crofting are two words that could be spoken in the same sentence. Fundamentally, are we interested in seeing from these amendments the likelihood that crofting communities will be encouraged to seek the right to buy, and are we talking about this actually pointing more people in the direction of taking action in that direction? Is that likely to happen? I would hope so almost distinctly. I think that when you look at what's happened in the Western Isles, all of those by-outs, I would suggest, have happened because of the existence of the Land Reform Act. Not that they haven't been used, but it was only with that existence that enabled that progress to be made. Actually, ourselves in our little township, we've managed to negotiate the purchase of a very small area of land for a community hub by using the existence of the Land Reform Act, so I think that it's a very important piece of legislation and any improvement that's made to it, I think that everyone should welcome. Very good. And if I can make one point about process as well, convener, with your permission, if these amendments to part 3 go through, which we generally hope they would, that the part 3A was drafted on the basis of the current part 3, and therefore the part 3A would have to be amended also in line with that. That's all technical, but I just want to flag that, otherwise we'd end up with another anomaly. That was the process point. I completely support what Susan Walker said about encouraging people. It's very important that the law is credible, and if it is believed to be credible by all parties, that will encourage more people to talk to each other in exactly the way that's been happening in the Western Isles. Those changes make the law more credible in the eyes of communities potentially, because currently the folklore around part 3 is impossible to use and therefore don't even try, and that discourages communities. That makes it that bit easier, therefore they'll be prepared to think about using it if necessary, but that in turn will encourage more discussion between communities and owners of the sort we're now seeing regularly in the Western Isles. Thank you very much witnesses for a comprehensive session. It's one where I think there's a wide degree of agreement, as I've said earlier. We do have another couple of items, which we have to move on and take in private. While it'd be nice to stand around and talk to you all about the price of lamb and the harrass, we'd be good idea if we could actually clear the room very quickly. We will now move into private session, and the next meeting will be on the 25th of February of this committee when we will hear from the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform on the Community Empowerment, Scotland Bill, and we'll take further evidence on the wild fisheries review from stakeholders. I close the public part of the meeting now.