 It's good morning, and welcome to the 24th meeting in 2017 of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. May I remind everyone who's pleasant to make sure that their mobile phones are on silence? There have been no apologies in the event. I would like to move on to agenda item 1, which is the decision on taking business in private. The committee has asked to consider taking follow-up items in private. i'r prifodau yw i'r brifodau. Felly, rydym yn dweud y drafft o'r ddweud ysgrifennu ar 2018 a 2019, yn ym 5, ac yn ymwneud o'r ffwrstri a'r Llanau Ym Mhwyddiol, yn ym 6. Felly, ym mwyaf ym mhwyaf i'r prifodau'r ym mhwyaf? Ym mhwyaf i'r prifodau ym mhwyaf i'r prifodau, dwi'n dweud i'r ffellyn i'r prifodau i'r prifodau i'r prifodau i'r prifodau i'r prifodau i'r prifodau i'r prifodau i'r Dy edrych, mae ydyw'r bydau, ac mae dylidiadau newyddion g Nike I one will be from the deputy convener Gael Ross. Thank you, convener. Good morning. Just to start us off, could you comment on the development of the bill, including the involvement of Ireland's Our Future? If you look at me, whoever wants to do it, then I'll bring you in if that's possible. Daryn, it looks like you've been nominated. I will say that I have been involved the longest with the island's policy work and the government. Without repeating a lot of what was already in the bill documents and also I think that you've got a very useful and helpful spice briefing, the origins of the bill dates back to 2014 when the Government produced the Empowering of Scotland's Islands community's prospectus document. That was the first time the Government gave a signal to a commitment that they were willing to look at bringing forward an island's bill. Coming on from that, that led to the consultation in 2015. That led to the consultation in 2015, which is obviously, we talked about the provisions that were going to be in a future bill and then in 2016 we brought forward the programme for government commitment, which committed to bringing forward the bill that we're discussing today. It's probably fair to say that the catalyst for the work that we're doing in the bill was the launch of the Our Islands, Our Future campaign by the three Holy Island councils back in June 2013. The Government since then has worked very, very closely with the three island councils first and foremost through the islands areas ministerial working group, and then laterally we've brought in to the new island strategic group the other three councils within Scotland have responsibilities for island communities, namely North Ayrshire, Highland and Argyllyn but. That's where we are today. It's worth recognising that, in terms of the bill, the Government was very keen to make sure that it was about all inhabited islands. That was part of the reason that the minister decided last August to bring the other three councils round the table. Since then we've been working very, very closely with them through the island strategic group, and they've been helping us to shape and develop the bill. That work will continue as the bill progresses through its parliamentary journey and beyond the drafting of regulations for the implementation of the national islands plan. It's worth also saying that ministers, both the current minister, Mr Yusav and his predecessor, Mr Mackay, have spent a great deal of time not just speaking to the councils but trying to get out round the country and meet island communities and speak to them about the bill and engage with them on wider islands issues. I know that the committee has recently been in Mull and it was quite useful to read the kind of read-out from that that was on your website, so we are trying to get out and engage as much as we can with people on the bill. Obviously, quite a lot has changed in relation to the UK leaving the EU. Has the approach to the bill changed since the Brexit vote? It's probably fair to say that it probably hasn't. I think that the Brexit vote was last summer and the bill was only announced in August, September last year, so it's running alongside the Brexit process. In terms of the time scales for the Brexit process and the bill process, they are running along. I imagine that the bill will probably conclude in advance of any Brexit outcome, so it's going to be very difficult to see any impact on the bill. We certainly don't expect to see any significant changes to the bill. Obviously, I don't want to prejudge any amendments that may come forward at stages 2 and stage 3, but we're not expecting any dramatic changes due to Brexit. The likelihood is that, if the bill goes through in a form that it is, with commitments to provisions for island proofing and for a national islands plan, that's probably where we would see Brexit, when it comes from Brexit being taken forward with any future legislation that may have been required, being island proof, and also implications being taken commitments made in the national islands plan. Just finally, were there any issues that were raised in the pre-bill campaign that are not in the bill now as it stands? I think that the bill as it stands is pretty much what was consulted on. There is a slight variation around the 2014 commitment to look at extending the powers of the Orkney and Zetland County Council Acts in 1974. Having looked at that with the solicitors and other colleagues across the office in Marine Scotland, it's clear that it would be very difficult to extend those particular acts partly because of private, partly because of the passage of 40 years in terms of changes in how we do legislation. The provision in the bill is to look at a marine licensing scheme, but I imagine that the committee will have questions on that, so I'll not get into too much detail on that at this time. Just a minor point to think about the preparation for the bill. Was it unanimous that something like Sky should be included? It says that bridges are ignored, yet surely Sky doesn't have the problems of ferries, transport, which real islands do. It's interesting because— Darren, I'll let you gather your thoughts just to answer that I'm sure, as we'll all agree, that Sky is a real island and how the bridge was taken into account. Indeed, it is quite surprising because we've actually had it asked of us three times whether Sky is covered by the bill. People aren't obviously reading the explanatory notes very clearly, because it's quite clearly stated in the explanatory notes that Sky is included. Certainly the basis is in terms of inhabited islands according to the 2011 census, as there is around 1993 inhabited islands, so that is the basis and Sky is definitely on that list. Any other questions? Yes, Peter. To follow up that to some extent, there is an issue that really remote areas on the mainland have all the same issues that the islands have. In particular, Sky, because Sky has a road bridge, and one of the drivers is the fact that you rely on ferries to get from A to B if you're on an island. Sky doesn't have that problem. Many areas, remote, rural areas on the mainland, have equal problems as islands. Where do they fit into this whole island's bill? At all, I suppose. I think that that answers your question, not at all. It is an island's bill, that's what we've been asked to look at and take and bring forward, and that's what we're doing. I acknowledge the point that you're making about remote, rural locations on the mainland, but it is an island's bill and that's the scope that we have to work with it. I think that the point is made. Fulton, would you like to come in? It's just the thought of it. I want to say that it is just the island's bill and it doesn't affect the... I mean, is there any knock-on effect that you could envisage as a positive knock-on effect, as a result of this bill that could impact on rural communities, as Peter Chapman mentions? Yeah, I mean, imagine the rugby. I mean, obviously, island proofing will be a key element of the bill. The plan will be a key element of the bill. Island proofing will obviously have implications potentially for the health boards, for example, and obviously a lot of our island's health boards have close links with mainland health boards, so that we probably tighten up that relationship in their work and relationship. It also, you know, it's not for me to comment, but the success of island proofing, or otherwise, may lead to looking at other areas in the future. Just before I move on to Stuart, can I just remind the committee that, I mean, we have... When we've taken evidence, as you will all remember, that a lot of remote communities have said that they feel just as much to be islands as islands, and that may be an issue that we should address with the minister when he comes in, because it is specifically out with the scope of the bill. So, I think if there's questions on that, which I'm sure there may well be as a result of the evidence, could we direct those to the minister? Stuart, do you want to come in, and then I'd like to move on, if I may, to the second theme, which Rodol will be leaving. In planning terms, there's a series of definitions for communities. The one I focus on here is remote rural communities, which, if I recall correctly, is defined as a community of under 10,000, that is more than 30 minutes travel away from a community of over 10,000. That would capture every island that's proposed, but it would capture places like Cambeltown and various other communities. What consideration in drawing up the policy and drafting the bill was given to using existing definitions, which are there and used for a wide variety of purposes in both local and national government. It would, of course, mean that the Ticl Island bill might not be wholly appropriate, but it would suggest that it would have a similar policy intention to protect remote communities and support them in a proper way. Darren Neane, I'm very rude. I'm going to jump in and just say it, Stuart. I totally take your point, and I think that—could I ask you to hold that question until the minister comes, because I think it's important that he's the one that answers that question. I'm entirely content to do that, because it's on the record. I will say that I did frame it in formulating the policy. I totally understand, and I think that Christine Grahame yesterday said that when somebody asked a question that was a clever way of doing it. I accept the premise and will certainly make sure that you get the chance to ask the minister. Could I move on and ask Radar to start on the next section, please? The islands bill is very largely enabling legislation, but, as I speak to constituents, I know that there's a huge amount of expectation around this. I suppose that my fear is that it's going to be a huge disappointment, because there's nothing that I can see that's going to come out of this that is tangible. Everything will follow on, but the bill itself won't do any real difference once it's enacted. Is that the case, or is there something tangible that people will see as an outcome of the bill itself? I'd like to say that the bill provides a real framework for action in the future. That's what it does in terms of the national islands plan, in particular in terms of island proofing. I would say about island proofing that it's designed to ensure that the interests and the needs of island communities are placed at the centre of future legislation, future policies, future strategy and also future service design and delivery in those ways. While the bill itself is hard to connect to tangible local actions in future, it will certainly have an impact in terms of making sure that those island communities are connected in the decision making processes early enough so that they can have an impact on what happens in their communities in those terms. What that is and what those future policies will be, what those future strategies will be, is obviously quite hard for me to say in those terms, but it will come through in those actions in the different times and over the course of times. The national islands plan has the potential to make a difference. Could we have had a national islands plan without the legislation? Would that have been possible? We could have had a national islands plan without legislation and that's the alternative that's supposed to putting it forward in legislation. We thought that the rigour, the transparency and also the scrutiny, particularly from Parliament and from others, including now in communities themselves, from the work being undertaken by Government and the consultation that will be required would actually produce a different level of impact in those terms than having a national plan designed by ministers. Having it in statute means that not only do the Government have to do it following the passage of the bill, but we'll have to review it after five years and we'll have to keep it going in those terms. So it's not just for now in those terms, it's to maintain the momentum that, as Darren talked about before, in terms of our islands, our future, which then led up into the different groups that ministers are doing, which now leads into the bill, which will kind of keep that momentum going in future, so that our communities continue to be a focus, because there's always a potential that, once you go away from the bill, the priority will move and that Government will move on to something else, but in those terms it can't because the statute means that it must be in place. What do you envisage being in the national islands plan? What kind of powers will be there additional four islands, things like transport, digital connectivity, control over marine, what can the expectation of the national plan be? The purpose of the plan, as is set out in the bill, is to have the main objectives and strategy of the Scottish ministers in relation to improving outcomes for island communities. That is the purpose of the plan. We don't detail what should be in the plan, partly because one of the first things you'll need to do is consult. We'll need to consult with those who are interested in the bill, those who will be affected by the bill. In doing that, we'll find out the priorities, we'll get those in. All the big issues you would expect, transport, health, digital connectivity and all those things, you'd expect to be in the plan, but what that means in terms of what powers or what else commitments might be given, I think will arise during that process. I think it would be wrong for me now to say that this is the priorities of islands in future, sitting in Edinburgh as I am. I think it would actually, during the consultation, that will arise and that will bring up in those terms. I'm going to bring Jamie in, if I may. I may bring you back in a moment if Jamie doesn't ask the question what you want. Jamie, would you like to? Thank you, committee. Good morning. I think I'll start with a question, more of an overriding question. I get the impression from speaking to folk on island communities that, although there is excitement and a sense of welcoming that there is a bill coming forward, there is, as Rhoda said, a great deal of disappointment and the lack of specific content in the bill. One of the things that was mentioned specifically on what you might comment on is the lack of an overall objective of the bill. In other words, is it the purpose of the island's bill to, for example, grow population or economic regeneration? There are very little overriding aims or ambitions to the bill, and that's one of the things that was commented on. Given that we could do much of this without a bill, is this just a bill for bill's sake? Ian, no, I don't think it is just a bill for bill's sake. In terms of the national island's plan, it is about improving outcomes for island communities. Having just one thing, such as increasing population, might not capture all the different needs of all the different islands across Scotland, because not all islands have a depopulation issue necessarily. Some do some don't, in those terms. Having one overriding issue might prioritise some issues over the other. I think what a national island's plan needs to do is potentially to cover the issues that run across the islands and ensure that the government and also its partners, because the partners in local authorities and health boards will also be part of the plan in those terms as well. It's about bringing them together so that there's an overall strategy, there's an overall objective in terms of how we deal with it. That might change over time, so having one objective now might not be relevant in 10 years' time and 15 years' time in those terms. I think it needs to change, and that's the purpose of the legislation to make sure that there is maintaining a focus both now and in the future on island's issues. Thank you, but isn't there a worry, by not specifying specific issues that affect island communities? Those are long-standing issues and not ones that are going to go away overnight or even in 10 years, such as access to healthcare, affordable transportation, affordable housing and all the other things that we've heard from people who gave evidence to us. By not including them, are we missing a trick? Do we have a unique ability here in primary legislation to ensure that the Minister of the Government of the day actually addresses those issues rather than leave it wide open to just a strategy when we have no idea what may or may not be in that strategy? So isn't there a sense that island communities deserve a better opportunity to properly address those issues through the bill rather than leave it to the minister? I think that we could have a list of issues that must be contained in the bill in those ways. It would always have to be a non-exhaustive list because there could always be issues that arise during the consultation or arise in future, which we're not anticipating now in those terms. So yes, we could have an issue and therefore they would need to be included in any island's plan. I think that you're right in terms of that. You would always expect things like transport and connectivity, particularly digital connectivity at the moment, to be in the plan, but I'm not too sure how much putting that in so that it must be included will actually change this about what ministers say in those things and how what the objectives are in bringing it together as a whole in those terms. I think the minister's always made clear that in talking about the bill, he's always open to the ways that the bill might be improved in those terms, and if the committee have a feeling that there should be particular issues or there should be particular things in there, then the minister will be more than willing to consider those sort of issues. Liam, I'd like to bring you in if I could briefly. Thanks, convener. I would just follow up a comment that Jamie and Rhoda have made. I don't necessarily have an issue with legislation being enabling. It's about enabling island communities, and I'm happy to share with colleagues my perspective on why islands are different from other mainland remote communities. I think that the benefits from that in terms of island proofing could spill out to the way in which policies developed and legislations developed and impacts on those remote communities. However, I think that there is a sense of expectation about what this bill will achieve, and Rhoda is quite right. There's a serious risk that the legislation itself will not match that expectation. People have a clear view of where it is that island proofing would be valuable in dealing with problems that it is facing because of the way policies developed and the way that legislation has been developed and implemented. What capacity will there be through the bill or through the intentions of the minister from your dealings with him to look at existing examples of where legislation and policy is working against the interests of islands and take early measures to address that? The promises around what will happen in the future can best be evidenced by a demonstration of a willingness to use island proofing and to use the purposes behind the bill to address some of the concerns that are real and present now. It is clear, particularly in terms of island proofing, that it isn't retrospective in those terms. It is about future legislation, policy, strategies and services. It's not just the new ones that have been developed, but also where things are being redesigned or revised in those terms so that other issues can come in. There are already many different routes. The island's bill is raising the profile of a lot of those issues that you're talking about in terms of how they can be addressed. Certainly, the Government is willing and open to look at wherever we might do it in those terms in order to bring it forward and what the appropriate route for making that change might be in those terms. Whether it's to do with a health issue on a particular island, which needs to be looked at because the regulations aren't quite working for them, then I think ministers are more willing than ever to have a look at how they might adapt and change what is there. The idea of island proofing is that, in future, one size would not necessarily fit all in those terms, particularly in terms of legislation, that we might need to tweak or to make sure that the legislation focuses on island issues in a particular way. That includes not just primary legislation but also secondary legislation, where it's often a lot of the detail of how we deliver policy is actually made in those terms. I think ministers are more than willing to consider what options might apply, but the bill, as it stands, is about future in those terms, and it's not about the reciprocating nature of island proofing in that way. I'm going to bring Rada back in now, if I may. I suppose the more I hear, the more puzzled I become, because when you speak to the three islands councils, they're very clear about being empowered, getting decision making powers that they don't have at the moment. They have the infrastructure to deliver that, decisions over transport, connectivity, planning over the marine environment, and so on. They have councils that can preside over that and deal with it. When you speak to smaller islands, be they Barra, Westray, Unston and others, but in Malware, the committee was, they're talking about being empowered over things like education, care in the community, healthcare and things like that. I don't know how you can draw up an island's plan that meets all those expectations in those very different areas. There's island groups who have the infrastructure to deal with it, but small islands who don't have a council—lucky maybe to have a community council, that's active—how can they take those powers and how can they use them? If they can't, then does that mean that no island community gets them? Ian, I think that that is, from the evidence that we've heard on island so far, that cuts to the chase of it. I think a lot of these ways the island's bill needs to be seen alongside a lot of the other work that is going on. For example, I do a lot of work in community empowerment and the community empowerment act and implementation. When you speak about more, there's a fantastic development trust there, which is doing a lot of work in the community and for the community in those terms. Actually, it's not necessarily the island's bill that needs to be the thing which would enable them to do things. It's about owning their own land, it's about making decisions in their way, so whether they use participation requests through the act in order to get involved in the decision-making processes of the council, whether they use asset transfer to get more land, which they can actually develop their own purposes in, you're right. In those terms, the island's bill in itself probably won't matter too much in those ways, but the overall strategy on the island's probably will for them. In future, if you talk about Crown Estates or some—which is going to be taken forward in a separate bill—or if you talk about the local democracy bill, which was mentioned in PFG last week, in terms of how you might think about the powers that are relevant to both local authorities and also for communities in future, how are they going to be used? Ensuring that islands have their voice in those processes and ensuring that island proofing is taken forward within Crown Estates, within the local democracy bill, will be essential in ensuring that the powers actually go down to the people who can use them in those ways. I'm going to move on to the next theme, if I may, and Mike will start us off on that, please. Very much, convener. This is very much about island proofing, this theme. When we were in Moll, taking informal evidence, people told us that—the communities told us that they were very concerned that island proofing mustn't turn into a tick box exercise. The main question here is, how are you going to make sure that this doesn't turn into a tick box exercise? I'm particularly afraid of that. Looking at the 60-odd organisations mentioned in the appendix to the bill, I can imagine situations in which that's just not named any particular organisation, but one of them turns around and says, oh, well, how does this affect the island? Oh, well, that's fine tick box. They were suggesting to us that the only way you can really do this is for each of those 60 organisations when they have something that they want to do, that they actually consult the islanders. That process doesn't seem to have been highlighted in the bill, and what do you think? Is this a good way forward that we could actually put something in the bill to say consultation with the islanders on new initiatives by these organisations should be included in the bill? What the bill says is the general duty to have regard to our communities when they exercise their functions. That's the overall duty, and if there's going to be a significant difference, then they must do an island's impact community assessment. Also, the bill provides that the public bodies in the schedule one must have regard to any guidance from Scottish ministers in those ways. We would expect in that guidance, and we need to consult on that guidance and go through the process of putting that together, which will include islanders themselves as well, that the guidance will set out what the authorities will need to do in a consistent and a transparent way, including publishing it, including consulting islanders in those things. That's how they will need to comply with the duty in that way. It will be the guidance which sets out, and there can be quite a lot of detailing guidance, including how they might do it. We'll always want a degree of local discretion or discretion for public authorities in how they do it themselves. We don't want to say you must do it in this way at all times in this fashion, because that may well lead to tick pocks. We need to be able to provide authorities with the ability to innovate, the ability to do things differently, and the ability to consult where they need to in terms of islanders. We would expect consultation to be a key part of that process. In terms of doing legislation, for example, we always consult in those times, in those terms. We always consult before we do a bill in that way, so in doing that we would expect the guidance to highlight where that consultation will need to take place with islanders, including in just the initial question of will it make a difference to you what we are proposing in those ways before you even need to think about doing an impact assessment so that they get in at the start of doing that consultation in those processes. I'm not suggesting that you should be prescriptive in saying that this is how it has to be done. I'm not suggesting that at all, but what I am suggesting is that I know you're saying that consultation could be part of the process. Should consultation not be a necessary part of the consultation process when these 60-odd organisations are implementing change? That is a fear expressed to us by some of the residents, particularly on mole that we heard from. They were concerned that the impact assessments are taken in Edinburgh or Glasgow or wherever they are, and they are not dealt with actually what happens on the ground in mole, for instance, where that's the experience we have from members of the public in mole. I think that is, yes, in part because that is their current experience in those terms as well. You would hope that when island proofing comes in, it would not only enable the ad to put the legal duty on them, it would be about a culture change for organisations as well and actually how they do their business. Community empowerment itself is often about making sure that communities have the ability to participate in that decision-making process, and this is part of that in bringing it forward. What we don't want to make it overly complex for public bodies to do things, as you say, to be too prescriptive, because that does actually tend to lead to more of a tick-box process where they can just say, yes, we've done that, yes, we've completed that. We sort of spoken to them so that we can do it. That's not what this is about. In terms of putting it in guidance, that enables us to give that flexibility so that we can do the kind of case studies approach. We can do show people what best practices and good practices and enable that to come out during your process. In the guidance, will it be that these public bodies must consult local people in the islands? I can't say what that guidance will be at the moment. That's the problem, isn't it? That's the problem. In those terms, partly because we have to consult and we have to make sure that what is in the guidance is what people want as well. I understood, but that is the point of the problem. Can I ask, when this process was going on and the island's bill was being considered, the bill team and the minister must have considered the implications of island proofing decisions. Any person who is considering implications will consider the cost. We'll have an idea in their mind how much it's going to cost to island proof future legislation. I haven't been able to see any indication of what those costs will be. Do you have an indication on an annual basis what it will be to cost to the Scottish Government of island proofing decisions they make? Do you have an estimate? Or is it just something that will just be met by councils if they are implementing decisions? I don't think that councils find that very easy to work. Darren, do you want to come in on that or is that still Ian? I think it's still me. You're probably thankful, Darren. Yes. The financial memorandum sets out the cost of implementation and an ongoing cost of how you incorporate it into this amazing process. I understand that and we are going to have questions on that. I'm actually saying that you've asked people to come up with an islands plan, they're going to come up with an islands plan, you must have had some ideas what was going to be in the islands plan and I'm asking you how much that's going to cost the Government to make sure the plan is implemented for the islands. I think that given the process we have to do there's too many variables where you can say what the implication will be. What the bill requires in doing island proofing is that in doing any new legislation, policy or strategy the Government have to consider whether there is a significant different impact on islands in that way and if there is then you do an impact assessment and it's in the impact assessment where it will draw out what the future of that is. I can't predict necessarily what the future plans will be for each time for what the Government will do and therefore I can't necessarily predict what the impact assessment is going to be then as part of the impact assessment you have to set out whether they can improve the outcomes or mitigate the outcomes if the policy is going to have potentially a negative impact in those ways. That would be part of that process so to try and predict what that might be and therefore what the cost might be of every new policy strategy or legislation is actually very very difficult in those terms and probably impossible. I totally understand that and the danger of course is people on islands will expect the Government to do it and it's going to cost a lot of money and at this stage we have no indication of what that's going to be. I don't think it will cost a lot of money if we do it properly. If we cooperate it as part of a consultation process as we were discussing there where we figure out what impact it's going to have on the islands whether we do an impact assessment process because we do a lot of these things already we just don't talk about it in quite this way. This will make it much more clear it'll give a consistent process and it'll be much more transparent about how we reach the decision in those terms, whether that has additional costs in terms of what we do. That's hard to say at the moment but actually it should just be part of the process. I will stand by the fact that I think people on islands will expect to receive the same ability to have medical care that people do on the mainland for example and there will be a cost for that absolutely. I'm going to bring Ryder in now if I may and then John. John, would you like to come in on that? Just to follow up this whole theme of island proofing, would there be any consideration given to retrospectively looking at previous legislation or plans or anything like that going back the way or is this purely island proofing going forward? The bill as it stands is about future. There's no retrospective element to the bill at the moment. Mike, do you want to come back very briefly? Yes, very briefly. Following on from the convener's points, you said that it was impossible to judge whether it would cost any more money but there's an expectation as the convener was saying that if this policy is actually to make a difference rather than be a tick box exercise there needs to be funding for it because there'll be extra funding needed to implement issues in the islands which wouldn't be needed on the mainland. In the forthcoming budget is there going to be a budget line for this bill in other words other than the financial memorandum you just got back there which is specifically for island proofing? Anything I can say at the moment? Can I just ask one further question before we move on? If there's a model developed for island proofing to encourage a consistent approach taken by all public bodies what do you envisage would happen to a public body if they failed to comply with the approach that's been laid down in the bill? In terms of compliance each public body wouldn't be under the new legal duty to perform island proofing on all their functions as it comes through in that way. Public bodies which failed to comply with their legal duties will be held accountable as normal as through their normal accountability arrangements so for example ministers are accountable to Parliament and they're also accountable to the electorate, local authorities are accountable to as in their functions they're accountable to their councillors and also also to local communities in that way and other bodies are the same in terms of the accountability arrangements which will come through I think that's where the compliance aspect would come in. Okay we're going to move on to the next set of questions which Richard's going to feed on, Richard. Good evening and good morning. You'll have seen now, heard basically the themes that everyone's talking about and I want to turn to the factor of constituency boundaries. So currently on the schedule of Scotland Act 1998 Orkney and Shetland are fixed as two of the 73 constituencies. The western Isles Parliamentary constituency takes in the western Isles, it doesn't have that protection but section 13 of this bill will provide it. But there are different islands in different places in different local authorities and frankly these people feel overlooked, forgotten about and basically that what's happened in mainland is not being replicated or taken care of in the islands. So my question is if we have councils of varying sizes, why can't we have a further islands authority and has there been any thought given to constituency or local authority structure of island groups? I know one of my colleagues will ask questions about member shortly but so I want you to contain to islands people in the mull feel as though we had forgotten about so basically should we not have another island authority that would take in, I know it would be stretching quite a bit, but take in all the islands in regard to so that people would feel that their particular island was being looked after. The commitment for the western Isles stems back to the prospectus in 2014. It was a very specific ask of the western Isles at that time and that's why for the last couple of years the Scottish Government hasn't had the power to do this but with the most recent Scotland Act the power has to transfer from Westminster to Holyrood so we now have the ability to deliver on that commitment and the promise that was made back in 2014 so that's why the focus on doing this for the western Isles and some would say it's an anomaly that Orkney, Shetland have at both for western Isles and Holyrood and the western Isles only has it for Westminster so the Government's delivering on that. In terms of wider constituency, you know, if you take, I'll deal with constituency first and then come on to local authorities. Obviously for the Scottish Parliament the local boundary commission have to undertake views of constituencies and I believe they will be doing another view of the Holyrood boundaries in not too distant future so there may be recommendations for changes in that regard but obviously I'm not sure. I believe you're also speaking to the boundary commission in not too distant future as well so it's maybe a point you would wish to raise with them. In terms of local authorities, I take the point that you're making but my current understanding and obviously this is maybe a more a point for the minister to answer is that I don't think the Government has any intention of looking at local authority boundary changes at the present time so ultimately it would have to be a Government decision. Have you ever dealt with the electoral commission? Electro commission, local under boundary commission. Yeah, well basically to change boundaries, the boundary commission, you know, to change boundaries and I've dealt with them several times and it ain't easy to get them to go along, you know, even to a point that they go down a street and go away a tangent, but anyway I'll part that one. So basically there's no thought to a nylon authority. In terms of the Alice Bill now. No. Fulton, do you want to go on to look at that local authority point and I'm not sure if Liam what you want to come in specifically on that but okay so Fulton, what do you? Yeah, thanks convener, more than by no. Yeah, it's sort of following on from Richard's point in terms of the constituency boundaries moving on to the actual, you know, councillor, member blobs. We heard a bit of evidence in this from our animal and it's quite interesting the sort of debate that we had with the local authority there. Do you have any indication just now how that might work? I know there's talk of maybe if an island is populated they would have one or two specific councillors, which I think personally from what I heard might be a good idea, but you know, have you any idea how that might work in practice and how long it will take to implement? I'll deal with that again. At this time we don't have an indication. The main reason for that is local government boundary commission assuming this part of the bill goes through would be asked to undertake reviews of the six local authority areas impacted and they would bring back recommendations to ministers which, with the expectation that those recommendations would come back and could be implemented in time for the next local government elections in 2022. So it's very much a piece of work that local government boundary commission would have to take forward and we'll get an indication from that. So those recommendations are likely to include considerations such as the number of local councillors if that's likely to change and the practicalities of how they might travel between islands are such that these are likely to be included in that. Yeah, they would make the recommendations and obviously I think in terms of travel they would, I would assume they would be taken to account logistics of travel. I mean I think I might be wrong on this but I think Mill does have a councillor at the moment but likes of Tyree doesn't and I know we've met the people from Tyree and the minister was there recently and this is what an issue was quite close to their heart was you know about they felt they had a lack of connection with the local authority and you know it's how because they didn't have a councillor on Tyree but Tyree's obviously got a very small population so you know that's something we'd have to look to that as well. We met the councillor who won the councillors for Moll but the one that lives on Moll and she was part of the evidence session so I was good happy with that. I think we'll move on to the next theme and Peter you're going to lead off on that please. My questions are about marine development within the Bell and the Bell provides a regulation making power for Scottish ministers to establish a marine licensing scheme for development activities and you know I wonder what development activities actually means in practice what kind of powers are envisaged to be to be in there. My first question, Pacific question is will the provision for marine development licensing apply to all of Scotland's islands? I'll take those. In terms of development activity section 16 sets out what development activity means construction alteration and improvement works of any description either in or over the sea or under the seabed in those terms and also any form of dredging whether or not to remove all the material from the sea or seabed that's that's the encompassing form of what development activity means the regulations can also provide for exemptions within that as well and there are specific exemptions in terms of what are not development activities in terms of section 16 subsection 2 in those terms so that's kind of the specifics in those terms. Whether it will apply to all of Scotland's islands what the bill provides for is an iterative process the requires that a local authority who have inhabited islands apply for a designation to be made to ministers so it will be for the local authority who wish to have more control in the seas around their islands to bring forward that designation and that will kick off a process in those terms and that process includes that ministers must consult first before it brings any draft regulations to parliament and then it be those draft regulations that parliament would look at in those terms so in theory yes it could apply to all of Scotland's islands but in practice it will often depend on what the local authority and whether they want to take on these new powers themselves. I mean obviously there's going to be further consultation which are timescale for that process to take to take place that would depend on when the designation when the application for designation came forward so when they came forward with that application then we would have to consult on that following that so there could be six different ones coming forward if at different times or there could be more coming forward at a single time in those terms we don't know it would depend on what the local authorities will want to do and is there going to be an ability there within that these powers to to have something to say about fishing activity around a particular island for instance or is that out west of scope that's so it's specifically about construction alteration improvement of works in those terms so it's not really about fishing no no way but obviously anything you build in the sea may have navigation issues and that's where it may come in terms of fishing but fish farms for example are also excluded from this activity in those terms as well fish farms are excluded yes because that's covered under the planning regime it's excluded from the Zetland Act as it stands as well at the moment which is kind of where we took the took the process from in that way. John Lyle, you'd like to come in on that. Morning panel. Yes, it's, whilst accepting these are two completely unrelated issues, I wonder if you had had regard to the experience of marine protected areas and how they might interact with this particular provision please. Yes, I think that's what we try to do through this part of the bill is to give a practical impact to what we meant by extending the powers of the Zetland Act in those terms. The way that this will have to be developed once the regulations are put in place once a consultation is done is in relation to all the things that already exist which includes the national marine plan which includes marine protected areas which includes any kind of local marine planning that might be there already in those terms so it will need to fit into that structure as it stands as well so I can't say what that will be at this stage because I think that will work up through that process. Okay, many thanks indeed. Okay, thank you. We're going to move on to just the financial convention. I'm going to bring John in and I'm going to come in after him and say John if you'd like to start off. Thanks convener, I mean I realise that finance we've already touched on through the convener and I think Mr Rumbles but I would like to press you just a little bit more as to what the impact of this bill would actually be and around the finances because I mean from what I'm understanding from what I've heard so far there's going to be this plan and there will be more emphasis on both the government and local authority and others to really consider the impact on the islands of decisions but if that's as far as it goes I'd struggle to understand how the people on the islands are really greatly advantaged because to some extent I mean Argyll and Bute council who I was impressed by when we met them you know they know there is not a care home in Mal they have thought about that they realise there's a cost to putting a care home in Mal they realise it's having an impact because people want to visit their relatives in a care home they have to go to the mainland they have thought about it they've decided that the costs prohibit it and therefore I just struggled to see what is the difference going to be in the future if there's no money to put a care home in Mal and all we're telling them to do is they have to think about putting a care home in Mal I think it's it's not just about people are already aware obviously of the care issues on Mal and the implication that might be Alan proofing is also about making sure that other issues which might not be quite as clear might not be quite as thought through our thought through but you're right what the bill doesn't require is that they must do something from that in those terms because that that would be quite an onerous thing to require that once you've done an assessment you must always do what you require what you've assessed in those terms and there would be quite a lot of costs potentially involved in that what the bill does is make it clear and transparent and must important consistent system in place so that those issues are at least people are aware of them and can start to tackle them in different ways in those terms right okay well that answers my question thank you um I think that's going to be an interesting issue to to deal with jayby you want to come in and then I'd like to come in if I may please thank you you can be now I think it just falls on from from what john says in it that it's perhaps a worry that you can probably picked up over the course of the session is that are you okay um is that the the bill doesn't require anyone to do anything other than create a plan or island proofing doesn't require anyone to do anything other than consider and really what's missing this and is relevant to the financial memorandum is there's absolutely no budget indicated anywhere in this bill that will actually benefit islands in a true and proper sense nor does it empower local authorities to do additional things that they're not able to do at the moment either through legislation or via additional finance so it comes back to my earlier point that it does this go far enough is it just enabling should it go further is there opportunity for us to propose further measures to make the bill stronger that will have meaningful change to island island communities i'm going to do the same as i've done with the previous question i think that's really a question that we need to push the minister on because i think it goes to the to the nub of the the problem i mean if ian or darren want to offer a short answer to that i'm very happy to take it but they may feel that the minister is the better person to answer that but in i think in terms of what consideration might be given i think probably the minister is the most appropriate one in those terms because what you described about the bill it is about the framework for providing those things to take place what the actions and the future actions there aren't necessarily for the islands bill in those terms because there are wider considerations and there is all the legislation there is all the processes that are taking place in which this will impact on because it will make it clear within those processes what needs to be done and how it might be done and there'll be plenty of opportunity to talk about the particular finances that might be required within the crown estate or within local democracy and any changes there and any powers and shifts in that within this process as well can i ask a direct question if i may on the financial memorandum i think that there's an estimated cost of £142,000 to draw up over the first five years of the bill to draw up the island plan is that right have i got that right yes we estimated it would cost a hundred thousand every five years to do the plan in those terms which is staff time and also administrative costs and in terms of doing the annual progress update and that would cost 8400 a year so over five years that would you know i i mean the one thing that's come to me about about the consultation that we have is every island may have overarching issues but each has individual issues which are critically important to them given the fact of the number of inhabited islands there are around scotland 142 000 pounds doesn't go very far especially if the government then got to use the residue of that to come up with an overarching plan that is the administrative cost for the plan not necessarily any of the actions that might arise from that i absolutely understand it's nothing to do with the actions but but you know if you are going to use consultants or experts to do it you know it's it's it's less than 10 000 pounds bullets a lot less than 10 000 pounds per island you know that you're saying to come up with that plan that is not a very big figure and and some of the bigger islands we're going to have more complex problems and more complex plan are you sure you've got those figures right because my personal experience from drawing up plans in the private sector that figure is way off target we we base this figure on the cost of that or the national plans and other large plans have costed the government in administrative terms and that's that's how we base that i understand your answer i i reserve my position leon meet you want to come in with it with the final point very briefly convenient thanks very much i hear the discussion around the financial memorandum i suppose from from my perspective the island proofing will in the sense expose the the issue and also if there's a case then for additional funding make that case more more compelling and so i've got less of a problem with that in some respects i think where the island bill will need to demonstrate its metal is those areas where there's necessarily a financial cost where the real irritation is that the way in which legislation has been formulated is enforced the way policies developed and implemented taken forward has a cost for island users whether island businesses or households or whatever simply because it's applied in a way that makes sense in a mainland context or an urban context but makes absolutely no sense in an island context and therefore i think the notion that somehow the island's bill is only about developing things that will cost money i think from my perspective and presumably part of the development with the bill is the expectation is that it will reduce cost in in some instances by making policy and legislation apply in a more rational common sense way in island communities and indeed in remote communities on mainland scotland i think that is a case it's a difficult case to make because we don't have any specific examples of what that might be so that's why you wouldn't see it in the financial memorandum because i don't think we could provide a reasonable estimate of what those savings might be but certainly as i talked about before what it's getting away from is the one size fits all so that there are costs at the moment and you can adapt it and change it for islands so actually the cost for the authority is lower or potentially particularly the cost for the users the service users or whoever is kind of that policy or strategy or services is affecting if that can change then that's a good thing in those sense we may reduce their cost and it may have an impact on their day-to-day lives so thank you i think that's the end of the question i'd just like to clarify something that i said on the basis of the amount of inhabited islands it's not 10 000 pounds per island for each plan it's a thousand pounds per island and that to me will will not even scratch the surface and on that note i'm going to thank you very much for your attendant kirsten i'm afraid you didn't get to come in but thank you very much for attending thank you ian thank you darren i'm now going to suspend the meeting for four minutes to give the chance for witnesses to change and for the cabinet secretary to attend therefore suspend the meeting thank you good morning i'd like to reconvene the meeting the third item on the agenda is the forestry and land management scotland bill this is the final evidence session on this bill and i'd like to welcome claudia beamish the reporter for the ecc lr committee on the bill i'd also like to welcome from the the scottish cabinet the cabinet secretary furgus ewing who is the cabinet secretary for the rural economy and connectivity good morning jenny gardener the head of forestry devolution carol barker munro head of sorry the bill manager kathryma the deputy bill manager barry mcaffey the solicitor joe hara because you're on the table ahead of forestry commission scotland and simon hodge the chief executive of forest enterprise mr ewing if you'd like to make an opening statement of about five minutes please well thank you good morning everybody this is a very welcome opportunity to give evidence on the forestry and land management scotland bill the forestry sector is hugely important to scotland especially rural scotland it's the bedrock of many rural communities it supports a huge range of businesses that rely upon it it's worth a billion pounds a year it supports 25 000 jobs and it's a very Scottish and it's a very important part of our rural life this bill actually is the first primary legislation on forestry convener since the scottish parliament was reconvened in 1999 and we are committed to continuing the consensual approach that we demonstrated in the the debate that we had in january this year on forestry as the bill progresses through parliament i met bilaterally with all parties prior to the bill introduction and i offered to do so again between stages one and two if that is of interest to to colleagues the bill is about completing the devolution of forestry it's a manifesto and programme for government commitment and i hope that it's a policy that commands a degree of cross party support following devolution forestry will be fully accountable to the people of scotland through scottish ministers and the scottish parliament funding for forestry will continue to be provided via the scottish budget which is of course scrutinised and approved by the scottish parliament new organizational structures are being created for forestry to deliver the functions conferred upon ministers and new collaborative and a stress collaborative cross border arrangements are being established for functions which are best outwith through cooperation with other governments i have been listening to stakeholder views about the new structures and in particular about bringing the policy and regulatory arm of forestry commission into the scottish government understand that some are concerned that it may lead to loss of skills and interchange and that forestry may somehow get lost in the mainstream civil service without in any way denigrating or diminishing those concerns convener to which i have listened carefully i don't agree that that will happen forestry will be the front and centre of the rural economy and we will continue to need skilled and experienced staff to deliver our ambitions over the summer i had the pleasure of visiting with jo hara all five of the conservancy offices from dumfries to dingwall and i did so specifically to meet the staff to discuss and learn their concerns and to reassure them and perhaps to dispel some of some of them and i believe that the new structures are the best way to deliver our ambitions for forestry and i'm committed to the continued engagement with the staff and the sector to address the concerns as the new structures are set up to put it shortly what i would say is this that the new arrangements will continue the ethos and the spirit of the forestry commission in scotland and i'm entirely committed to that turning to the bill itself if i may just make comments on the main provisions convener trying to stick to the time limit a cut me off if i go on too long because that happens apparently sometimes part two now cabinet secretary well thank you for that mic part two contains forestry functions and on tree health and silver cultural material testing functions and the bill places two important new duties on the scotland ministers a duty to promote sustainable forestry management and a duty to prepare publish and have regard to a scotland forestry strategy and the strategy will be the place i believe to set out high level objectives priorities and policies for the economic the environmental and social aspects of forestry and it will be the place where we define sustainable forest management and state how we intend to promote it we anticipate the strategy will cover areas such as woodland creation timber production and development increasing community engagement environmental impacts urban forestry and the threat from pests diseases and climate change part three deals with land management and provide powers for the minister to manage the national forest estate in a way that contributes to multiple outcomes and this part also introduces new powers for ministers to manage land for the purposes of sustainable development part four is the new regulatory regime for felling trees and restocking the detail of the regime is to be set out in secondary legislation enabling a more flexible agile and risk-based regulatory regime part five contains general powers to enable ministers to carry out their duties and six general and final provisions in conclusion convener i do look forward to working constructively and collaboratively over this session and the remaining passage of this bill in order to complete the devolution of forestry to this parliament and i look forward to working with you to that end thank you cabinet secretary there are a lot of questions to get through and i'd like to kick off straight away with with jamie and your question please thank you questions thank you good morning panel good morning cabinet secretary i think given that the structural and organisational changes that are proposed in the bill are somewhat a ffeta complete already i hope that cabinet secretary will forgive me for taking a step back and asking him that given the many positive things we've heard about the forestry commission scotland and fe s what is wrong with the status quo well the the status quo is what we're changing we're seeking to complete the devolution of forestry and to make it accountable to the people of scotland through the scottish parliament and the scottish government however at the moment we have two separate arms they're regarded as one indeed absolutely yes they work as one they work extremely collaboratively joe and simon and their teams work as one but they are two they are two their forest enterprise and the forestry commission the forestry commission is part of the forestry commission of the uk which is part of defra it's accountable to defra so instead of that the the forest enterprise will cease to be an agency of the forestry commission and will be an agency of the scottish government and the forestry commission will become a division of the scottish government but from the point of view of the work from the point of view of the staff they will carry on as is and therefore i think that the new arrangements will improve the accountability parliament will have the scrutiny role which will bring forestry centre stage in a way that i would perhaps suggest convener has not necessarily been the case since this parliament was reconvened and i think that that is a very good thing the cabinet secretary of incidents increasing accountability and scrutiny as a result of the changes in the evidence session we had last week there was some concerned raise that actually at the moment the two separate organisations report separately and therefore are more accountable than if they were integrated into the Scottish government do you have any view on that well i don't i don't share that concern i mean my experience for the last year year and a bit has been that i work extremely closely with both salmon hodge and joe ohara and i think the new arrangements will allow clarity of accountability clarity of responsibility responsibility is diffuse at the moment because the scottish government are substantially the funders but of course the forestry commission is effectively a UK body so that responsibility is diffuse at the moment i mean it might help convener i mean that's my experience but obviously simon and joe have been in place for for some time i think it would perhaps be useful to to get there insights because i appreciate how important the question that mr green raises so i would with your permission be keen to get to both joe and simons view about this from from the fronters at work who would who would like to lead off on that jay to go first as um as i am in the odd position of being a forestry commissioner as well as being a civil servant answerable to to mr gearing um i live and breathe this every day and it is uncomfortable it is awkward and it's unclear in terms of the role as a commissioner which is the the statutory basis from the 67 act but the reality that policy is devolved i answer on policy and the budget comes from the scottish parliament so so what this does really is allows the legislation to catch up with the reality of what is happening here and make it much more clear and transparent to anybody from the outside who can understand a minister with an official i constantly have to explain to people okay well i'm also a commissioner and this is how that all fits into things and it and it's basically i i believe it's a modernisation of the the legislation to catch up with the reality in practice and it does make it clearer and more transparent simon do you want to come out just to add one point i'd reflect what joe says entirely and for forest enterprise scotland additionally we manage the national forest state that's owned by scottish ministers and yet to a measure we are accountable to a cross border body for the way we do it again that that is difficult for us to handle sometimes and i think there's an opportunity here to to bring that into better alignment in terms of accountability to scotland thank you very much for that clarification the cabinet secretary mentioned in his opening statement the issue around expertise and some of the concerns that had been raised in previous sessions around expertise and becoming part of the civil service as opposed to this very separate and specific organisation that's focused on forestry i appreciate the commitment from the cabinet secretary to ensure that doesn't happen but i wonder how that may manifest itself in the bill or is there any way we could strengthen that in a sense that there's absolutely no way that current expertise will be lost as a result of the restructure well i i don't think the expertise will be lost we value very highly the expertise of the staff it is the staff the woodland officers and as i say i i met a great many of them in the second last weekend in august they have the expertise in silver culture they will continue to deal with applications they not ministers will ensure that good practice the forestry standards are adhered to they will ensure that we don't see mistakes of the past in planting in peatlands and so on replicated and they will ensure that the forestry strategy is fulfilled and this is the first time that there has been a statutory duty to have a forestry strategy and it does seem to me that and i'll be interested in wider views of the committee that that duty and that that strategy is the opportunity to ensure that the functions are clearly set out which functions will then continue to be delivered by the staff and the local staff will remain the vital source of regional knowledge because i became aware that there's vastly different circumstances about silver culture throughout different parts of the country because of the different terrains and land and habitats and forestry decisions will continue to be taken by forestry experts they will not be micromanaged and nor will there be centralisation of these functions but the forestry strategy will give us and i'll just finish with this point and again it might it might be helpful to get views from from the experts simon and joe but the the forestry strategy would of course provide the opportunity to to set out the targets that we've i think agreed to across the the political spectrum of 10 000 hectares per annum rising convener and that then would become a statutory duty which i would then have to fulfil but i don't know if if joe or simon would care to add to that because again it's extremely important question if we could do it relatively briefly in the sense there are quite a lot of questions and before we move off this theme there's two questions i'd like to ask as well so joe if you'd like to go for some or some yes enterprise scotland manages a million and a half acres of scotland and there's a whole range of technical expertise that's essential to do that and obviously it's my job to ensure that that continues and i think provides the government with a very very practical outlook on land management my plea is that it's not just forestry and foresters although i am one and they're very important civil engineers landscape architects land agents gis technicians procurement experts as there's a huge range of professional expertise that is critical and important and you know i'm very positive about the way in which that's being supported by the Scottish Government from my point of view the focus on forestry is actually what's the important thing here rather than what's in the legislation and what we have found and Jim McKinnon which i know you're familiar with his report pointed out as well and with the increased focus on forestry comes an increased focus on forestry skills for us as the regulator and as government's advisor so regardless of the legislation the importance of professional foresters advising government on forestry had already been identified and we have already got some work streams in process to look at how we develop and train woodland officers so it's absolutely important absolutely crucial and particularly in the context of the Scottish forest strategy. Jeremy, cabinet secretary if i may just ask i mean last week when we were hearing evidence Malcolm Crosby came in and said there were extreme concerns from people who worked in both organisations about the restructuring um and you have said clearly i think in your opening statement that having visited the offices those concerns aren't reflected in what you heard on the ground. Malcolm Crosby i think said that people weren't expressing their views up the chain can you just assure this committee that Malcolm Crosby is wrong and and that there are no concerns because he was quite clear about it. No i don't think i did say that there were no concerns that i heard of and i went round the five concerns i mean obviously some people did have concerns i mean that's absolutely clear so i should make that clear if i didn't do so previously but in the discussions that i had with Joe O'Hara and with the local conservators i think we we were able to provide a number of assurances very basic assurances and ones which i've discussed with Malcolm and i think i've met with Malcolm on two or three occasions with with the with the trade union representatives across the board is very important i continue to engage with them and i will do that but number one there will be no compulsory redundancies a number two the local office network will remain as the vital source the really the the hub of the activity of the forestry commission and of course in a sense the it is not actually a reorganisation there are two bodies at the moment forest enterprise and forestry commission there will continue to be two bodies and therefore the suggestion that there is one at the moment is not actually correct in law but of course in practice it does operate as one although of course the forest enterprise operates as the trading arm and the forestry commission operates as the regulatory arm and i think actually it it does make sense to divide the regulatory and the implementation functions rather than have that be done by the same body so i do understand that Malcolm has very sincerely held concerns some of the staff expressed those concerns to me others did not but what i would say was that that wasn't the most important thing in the discussions the most important thing was i i gained a sense and joe was at all of the meeting so she she can give her perspective but i got the sense that the staff were reassured that they will be valued as those who deliver the forestry policy for scotland they are proud of that it's a calling it's a vocation and it became very evident to me that that was the case and that we must preserve the ethos and spirit of the forestry commission and why why on earth would we not want to do that it's a precious thing in itself so whilst there are concerns i felt that the visits convener were pretty useful in helping to dispel some of them but uh you know i i i wouldn't certainly wouldn't say that Malcolm was wrong far from it he's doing his job and representing his members and i respect that okay i'm going to leave that there if i may cabinet secretary because there are a lot of questions and i think the next one is from from stewart thank you uh convener i want to move essentially to part three the management of land uh by scourish ministers and uh i've got a number of issues but perhaps i'll just start with the one that's come up a bit in uh deliberations thus far essentially part three starts by saying scourish ministers must manage forestry land in a way that promotes sustainable forest management now the definition of forestry land is provided at section 10 and indeed the national forest estate is defined at section 11 and at section 12 ministers must publish a description of forestry land but the bill does not address the issue of what sustainable forest management is what does the minister think it is and how should lawmakers like ourselves and the courts in future consider what is sustainable forest management um well i think as i said at the at the outset sustainable forestry management is it's something that would be set out in the forestry strategy that would be the right place to go into the details of that uh and uh you know that that is is our plan but i would i think defer in this matter to joe uh ohara if she could perhaps amplify that basic answer joe yeah um i think there's a there's a question here of what what happens in practice and what's in legislation so um there are working definitions of sustainable forest management at a very high at the most basic level it means that you don't you replace trees when you harvest them you know that's the sort of the basic understanding of it and then there are various levels within that the one that we use in practice across the UK that all four governments in the UK have signed up to currently is the UK forestry standard that is well understood and it's regularly developed um and that is the sort of thing that we will get into in the Scottish forest strategy says this is the current interpretation of what is sustainable forest management and that is probably a more because it's a developing science that is probably a more appropriate place to to discuss it and that's where it would be laid out well that that's fine and i'm comfortable to hear you say that but if i look at section three of the bill which subsection two the forest strategy etc it must do various things policies with respect to the promotion of sustainable forest management set out other matters in respect to the promotion of sustainable forest management in section three it talks about conservation enhancement the environment by means of sustainable forest management there are plenty of references to how you implement it but there's no duty in what's before us to help us understand what it is that is being implemented via the strategy and would it therefore be helpful for perhaps what i've just heard Joe Harra saying minister to be more clearly expressed in the in the bill and in particular perhaps just to choose an example at three c three a the economic development of forestry for example i i know those concerns in the the forest industries which don't get a great deal of reference to make sure that there's a continuous flow of forest raw material delivered to the forest industries and i'm not sure that i currently see that expressed in the bill itself so there are maybe some potential gaps that may be gaps in my understanding rather than the gaps in the bill of course cabinet secretary well i i think that the placing a definition in law on the face of the bill would mean conveniently that it couldn't be updated to reflect any changes and i think i'm writing saying that sustainable forestry management is not sustainable forest management is not a static concept it's a dynamic concept and even i as as a relative newcomer to this did read the ffs the forestry standards and there was a light review of those recently so i read some of them i didn't have to say i didn't understand every part of it because i'm not civil culture is nor am i qualified but the point is these have recently been reviewed they are dynamic they are not static and therefore i think the risk from a sort of technical drafting point of view is if you place a definition of what it is now on the bill then it it might become a bit outmoded or restricted restrictive in say a decade's time and therefore the place to define this i think is in the forestry strategy itself it's certainly not an attempt to achieve anything other than the flexibility that we seek to do and let me say in response to Mr Stevenson's question that it is essential that that we recognise the needs of the economy and the need to provide a source of continuing ready supply of productive timber for our sawmills for orientated strand boards companies such as Norbert and Egger for BSW james jones and glennon and the whole panoply of companies beneath them that are such a crucial part of our economy so we need a balance of course but mr stevenson is quite right that we must not neglect the economic aspects i think i hear somebody saying to me there are other timber companies out with the cabinet secretary's constituency which may also be relevant to say on that note i think probably that we are of course talking about the land that's for us the land and that's government land we could of course legislate to cover private land but the bill doesn't try to do that so but the one thing that i think has arisen is just simply looking at how the strategy for a strategy itself will be dealt with in parliamentary terms and the question has been put as to whether it should be submitted to parliament in draft so that before it is finalised there is an opportunity for parliament to consider its contents and suggest to ministers changes that it might be useful or appropriate to make is the cabinet secretary minded to think in those terms as a parliamentary process the bill i think wouldn't prohibit that happening but it doesn't mandate that it has to well this bill will will of itself but definition bring far far greater scrutiny to this parliament accountable directly to people of scotland and the provision in the bill calling for there to be a forestry strategy it further increases that accountability and as for the process that mr stevenson refers to convener the process for developing a forestry strategy is well established and the bill includes a requirement to consult and i believe that laying the strategy before parliament is is the appropriate process in this case but of course i'm very keen to to hear the committee's views after it's carefully considered all the evidence that it's had before it okay thank you cabinet secretary uh full new for the next question thanks can be panel cabinet secretary you mentioned in your opening statement and i know it's been talked about touched on by the the other speakers as well about cross-border working can you expand on the conversations you've had that you referred to and and how that might be implemented yes well there are certain aspects where i think in principle it is prudent and right to continue to work at a cross-border basis one example of this is disease now disease is extremely serious issue for forestry management uh some of the uh diseases have had disastrous consequences environmentally and economically and therefore diseases don't respect borders convener and it's right that we cooperate across these islands and continue to work together on tree health issues in order to tackle the challenges of these diseases directly and secondly for forestry science and research similarly uh and much of it into the issue of tree health and disease i think it's important to continue to cooperate and we have an excellent facility in uh Scotland in the forestry commission that deals with with research but there are also similar groups of of scientists and experts in England and i think the continued work in that area would be sensible and prudent and we also believe that that will ensure a continuity for the sector particularly for the scientists and the research as far as the a direct engagement is concerned i have met with the UK minister therese coffee and my welsh counterpart leslie griffiths and i'm encouraged by the discussions that have taken place so far between the governments and all agree that collaboration should continue on these matters so going back to the research cabinet secretary can i clarify your opinion in terms of the the forest research has been one joint UK body is that is that your preferred option well we would we would cooperate across the UK and we are committed to ensuring that there are continuing on-going effective cross-border arrangements where it makes sense and where it meets the scottish needs okay john i think you'd take you on to the next one thanks convener and cabinet secretary i think i'm looking particularly at part three and sections nine to twelve and someone else will come in at 13 onwards but although they do kind of overlap a bit with each other but we've we've having evidence from witnesses that they are confused or they feel there can be confusion over some of the definitions and titles and how they interact with each other and particularly section 10 meaning of forestry land national forest estate a and b other land and then relating to that the fact that the forestry land should be managed to promote sustainable forest development while other land is for sustainable development first of all i mean would you say there is some confusion or people could be confused around these terms or is this just the best we can do well as a lawyer for most of my life i would say that where there is legislation there tends to be an element of confusion that's not meant to be an entirely flippant remark i think we have to recognise that the national forest estate comprises forestry and non forestry land to start off with members will be aware that that simon hodge in this his teams deal with a wide range of other functions in forestry which is the principal function for example tourism in glenn trest for example the renewable energy scheme which brings in 10 million a year in income which has been developed by forest enterprise very effectively for example working with communities a for example in the briechan not far from my own patch but outwith my constituency and also in housing for local community groups so I just mentioned these very briefly because it's important to bear in mind that that forest enterprise is not one body that is solely voted to forestry over the last century since the forestry commission was established it has a crest functions originally it was solely forestry after the first world war more trees were needed and they were needed as the sole purpose but then since then tourism the environment housing community interests renewable energy have all been added so I would say that we have to kind of bear that in mind but I think that we do need to look very closely at these issues of definition and we need to treat very seriously the questions that have been raised by the various stakeholders and I know that that work has already started and we want to continue that work with you and I know that Carol if so asked can answer any further more detailed difficult questions right I wonder does that suggest that you're going to come back with maybe amendments or proposals of your own from the government side well there's a bill there tends to be amendments but no seriously we are considering the you know I can give you an assurance if we don't want to use the time by going into these to some extent legal questions today you know I can assure you that we are taking very seriously and looking very carefully at the issues of definitions that have been raised and there will certainly be some amendments we have recognised that there is the need for some clarity but both Barry and Carol could I mean I think from my perspective if I'm getting better than I could to be I think from my perspective I don't know about colleagues but I mean if you're saying that you are considering that evidence and you will consider maybe I could make a suggestion if this is not out of order that you know if the committee wishes to raise with us as soon as possible any specific questions of definition we will come back to you on that and we're happy to do so as quickly as possible convener I think I'm sorry I was checking with the clerks I think the report is due in in in the next few weeks but there has been significant questions and so any clarity that you or your your colleagues and assistants can give us to help us on that would would be much appreciated but you will know as well as we do time is short as far as the time that we can consider that before our report needs to be in sorry John okay well I mean I think I'll leave that point there if others are happy the other point I was just going to raise was that a confor had said that the management of forestry land should include a duty in ministers to maintain the productive capacity of the national forest estate is that something you've got any sympathy for well I think that's something that you know we we have to to ensure I think that that's a very valid point quite how that's appropriately encapsulated and dealt with in the legislation is a mixed question of policy and drafting but I accept that they're entirely accepted if confor are absolutely right that we need to maintain the productive capacity of the national forest estate okay thank you now Richard you're going to lead on the next one and I'm going to bring Claudia in here yeah it's good morning cabinet secretary will concentrate management of land to further sustainable development amongst the many other things that you're doing or you you have to do you have to manage manage land community woodland association stated we welcome the proposed duty in scottish ministers promotes sustainable forest management but believe it would be useful to clarify the definition and use of this phrase scottish environment link also noted there's very little reference of UK FS UK forest standard in the policy memorandum and no reference in the bill so I've got two questions what criteria will be used to determine whether land is being managed or will be managed for the purpose of furthering sustainable development that's question one I think it probably best assignment could answer that that's in order convener simplistically this is about government forestry land and other land and the distinction what we want to achieve overall is that we manage the estate sustainably in my mind that principally falls out into forestry land with forest on it which we manage according to a set of standards that's appropriate to forestry and then land that doesn't have forest on it that we actually managed to set of standards that's appropriate to the wider activities and the cabinet secretary mentioned some of them earlier I'd add our agricultural activity to that as well what our approach currently is that we look to the principles of sustainable land use in the land use strategy and that lays out a good set of principles that we actually plan against in terms of our strategic planning for the national forest estate and I think that's actually quite a good umbrella set of principles that is very appropriate for the use of for the management of the state land thank you for that how do you then propose to propose the forestry strategy and duty to promote sustainable forest management in the bill linked to the UK forest standard do Scottish ministers intend to go above and beyond as I know the minister always wants to be above and beyond the UK FS by working to sustainable forest management you're in the frame I think you're in the frame for that one yes in one sense we find this a well codified process because we have the UK forestry standard that standard has actually been adopted by the international sustainable forestry certification bodies and so we have an annual certification audit across all of the forestry on the national forest estate that assesses us against in effect the UK forestry standard but codified as an internationally recognised standard for sustainable forest management that assessment is always looking for us to do more to improve and we're always positive and keen to do that particularly recognising that it's our role not only to manage land sustainably but also to act as an exemplar for others to follow thank you Claudia would you like to come in at that stage thank you very much convener and good morning cabinet secretary um as you heard earlier i'm here for the claire committee um and we'll be reporting back and we'll be doing a report ourselves um and i much appreciate that opportunity um could i ask you uh in in this context why the bill is not better integrated with other scottish government policies such as biodiversity, deer management and climate change um in the committee last week willy maggy of the forestry policy group said the bill could be more innovative um peter peter that's his view peter peacock from community land scotland said that the bill should be aligned with other legislation on economic and social development a maggy keegan of scottish wildlife trust said the bill could deliver more deer management was mentioned as the biggest threat to woodland in scotland so while i i do um understand and and respect your point cabinet secretary made earlier in relation to the forest strategy that um things do need to be dynamic and not static i think that the point is perhaps still valid that these are overarching issues and i wonder whether those might be considered in terms of being on the face of the bill in that context before stage two well obviously we've we're aware of the desire of a number of the witnesses and stakeholders to ensure that there is alignment across the various dictates and requirements of an integrated rural development and land use policy including protection of the environment and of course these matters are set out in relation to the matters which must be considered and to which regard must be had in the preparation of the forestry strategy um i don't i mean it's i think it's partly a question of legal draftsmanship i mean when one has a bill in forestry the purpose is to set out the the law on forestry one does not as a matter of form and draftsmanship restate existing duties which are there and to which regard must be had because they are existing statutory duties and provisions so you know as a matter of you know technical form we would not restate things which are stated elsewhere law doesn't really do that and nor should it because where would you stop i mean you know law has to be clear and carefully defined capable of being understood and sufficiently clear in its format to to be able to be interpreted by the courts i mean i say that this is a lawyer really not a minister you once a lawyer you can't really stop being a lawyer i'm afraid but uh but that's really why we don't have a whole plethora of other issues that doesn't mean that they're not taken seriously of course they are and i think that's really what i would like to stress and i think you know the the understanding i have and maybe joe could correct me if i'm wrong is that the adherence to forestry standards means that we have the highest regulatory standards possibly in the world and that entails and brings with it as a necessary concomitant that the duties to have regard to biodiversity to habitats to the environment in particular for example not planting on deep peatlands these things are all ensured by our commitment to adhere to the ffs and these things are well understood and inculcated in the whole vocation and practice of the profession of forestry in scotland claudia do you want to come back or would you like to hear from joe i'm very happy to bring joe in it it would be helpful perhaps convenient to hear from joe first and then she may well be answering the point i wanted to follow up with yeah i just back up exactly what what mr ying said and i think we've been on this journey all throughout my time in the profession to developing our understanding of what sustainable forest management is and as i mentioned earlier the uk ffs has been a a developmental process and it will continue to develop as our understanding of social environmental and economic aspects of forestry develop and that's that that is the floor on which other things happen but from that using forestry to deliver biodiversity climate change social objectives is beyond sustainable forest management it's it's how you how you deliver policy on those areas using forestry to do it and that is the role of the forest strategy so i think it's important to retain those two different concepts in your head and then obviously the third point which is bringing this into law i think the key point on organise it i'll bring come back to organisational arrangements here by bringing us into Scottish government we have to deliver um we do anyway at the moment but it makes it much clearer that we are delivering government agenda on all of those aspects as part of government um with no kind of deffra across border body getting in the way so i think those things all come together to achieve the outcome that you're looking for right thank you just through the convener very briefly as a supplementary in part four preparation for a strategy the climate change act is referred to which is of course a statutory duty and then rights and responsibility statement are referred to i i i would simply ask the question whether in view of the importance of biodiversity and our statutory obligations there and the complexities of deer management for instance whether it would not be appropriate to refer to those in an overarching sense at that stage with permission i think carol barkman roll can give the copper plate the answer no pressure as the cabinet secretary said where there's an existing statutory duty those are not duplicated in the bill so actually the climate change targets are not in the bill nor is the biodiversity duty section four relates to strategies which are required by law but don't actually impose duties on Scottish ministers with regard to how to act so those are swept up with part four in terms of other policies and you mentioned a long list and there will no doubt be an increasing list in future those are intended to be dealt with under section three part three which are the economic environmental and social aspects of forestry i have a brief question just to finish off this section if i may cabinet secretary section 14 in the bill there's been some concern that it's vaguely worded could you just clarify what the intention of that section is and whether the wording shouldn't you believe the wording should be tightened up i think carol can probably give more succinct answer year the purpose of section 14 is to provide a power for ministers to enter into arrangements management arrangements with other parties to manage land on their behalf the arrangements are by consent so there's no compulsion the power isn't new forest enterprise scotland already managed land on behalf of a number of other people so the current power is actually in section three of the forestry act 1967 that language has been modernised and updated but reflects a current policy outcome which is happening in which our policies should continue in the future okay so just to clarify just so i'm sure i picked up it's voluntary arrangements between two parties with no compulsion mutual consent okay thank you very much the next subject will be started on by the deputy convener gal ros thank you convener good morning panel cabinet secretary i'd like to touch on sections 15 16 and 17 the acquisition of land by agreement compulsory purchase and the power to dispose of land and the bill gives Scottish ministers compulsory purchase powers in order to further the achievement of sustainable development for the first time these powers are in the current act but they haven't been used since it was introduced in 1967 why do we need these powers well these powers are powers which are as i understand it commonly provided for for public bodies which require to carry out functions in relation to the transaction of land and property and of course first enterprise one of its main functions is to do precisely that my understanding is as gail ross has said convener is that these powers have not been used for 50 years but they are there as a backstop i think be helpful if Simon hodge could give some examples of circumstances where it might conceivably be appropriate to exercise the cpu powers even though they they haven't required to be used for half a century Simon yes as cabinet secretary indicated we've not utilised such powers where it relates to sustainable forest management and one could imagine situations in relation to timber transport where timber is landlocked through a ransom strip in terms of wider sustainable development as i say there's no there's no examples because cpu powers haven't been used but if Scottish ministers wished their land management body to get engaged in activities in relation to conservation or protection of vulnerable habitats for example one could conceive of situations where we were asked to step in using cpu power but as i say i've got no examples because i've got no experience of cpu being actually utilised i think that i mean i take your point that because they haven't been used you have no examples but the very fact that it's in the bill is has been a contentious issue both with people that we've taken evidence from organisations are completely split on the issue and also committee members as well have various views on the issue of compulsory purchase and because it's unclear what these powers may be used for it doesn't give the committee confidence to go forward to say that either they are needed or they are not needed and i think to have such a contentious issue in the bill we really do need to have some sort of concrete examples and just because they haven't been used and there's been no examples in the past i think that in order for us to move on together as a committee we do really need some concrete examples i think that in two ways firstly generally and secondly specific and generally cpu powers exist as a backstop power they exist not to be used in the first instance but in the last resort i mean to give an obvious example convener for road construction for construction of new roads or other transport infrastructure it is sometimes necessary compulsory to purchase land that is always a last resort but it is routinely possessed power by public authorities from local authorities to central government this is not new this is this is commonly encountered and of course the fact that it hasn't been used in the case of forestry for 50 years is a testament to the fact that the negotiation has been successful but of course that negotiation has been conducted on the basis that there is a backstop power that an extremist could be used and therefore that informs and helps to encourage if we you might say the reaching of a negotiated conclusion whether to be in absence of those powers then in the case of the ransom strip example which simon hodge has illustrated then there would be no means to to lever those negotiations to a successful conclusion so the specific example is you know if we have trapped timber of thousands of hectares and this is not a theoretical issue this is a very practical issue where we have landlocked trapped timber that is inaccessible by road or by other reason and there is a ransom strip which prevents access from being being taken for vehicular purposes for the types of vehicles and equipment that's necessary to extract the felled trees then of course it might be necessary it hasn't been necessary for 50 years but it could in future be necessary for cpo powers to be used to purchase a ransom strip which was holding up a sustainable development an essential access to timber as a resource for communities and businesses so I think it's a it's a fairly routine issue but I do appreciate that there are concerns I'm aware that Scottish land and estates with whom we've good relations have raised this for example but others have raised it too and therefore I will undertake that you know we will look at whether we can in stage two and of course we will see what the committee says in its report but I would certainly undertake we will study this very carefully to see whether the use of this power should be more tightly defined and constrained by reference perhaps to the implementation of the forestry strategy and the other duties incumbent upon ministers and if there are other technical means of ensuring that the use of the powers is only for purposes that would be perceived by most reasonable people as not only necessary but essential so I'm very happy to look at that but I'm absolutely clear that this is a commonly encountered and routine provision across the public sector and is no stranger to anyone that's involved in the scrutiny of legislation cabinet secretary there are people queuing up to speak on this I'm going to let the deputy convener have a further question then I'd like to move on to one or two other people thank you and thank you for that explanation I think also one of the worries that has been expressed to us is not just a continuation of the powers but an extension of the powers in relation to sustainable development and would that be something that you would commit to look at as well and explaining further as to how that would work well of course we will we will look very carefully at any recommendations that this committee comes up with because we want to work consensually and that's that is the right thing to do so we will we will certainly do that I mean the phrase sustainable development is a very familiar phrase to legislators and to lawyers and there has been various discussions in previous bills in which I some of which I've been involved with that that a definition of sustainable development should be applied however that hasn't as far as I'm aware being the approach adopted by the parliamentary draftsman not least because as I understand it the term is very well accepted and familiar to the judiciary and I believe correct me if I'm wrong the legal fraternity here but I believe it was Lord Gill himself who said that this term is well understood and familiar to the judiciary and those who interpret the law so there can be no higher endorsement than that if I may say so I will go straight to Peter and Peter and Mike Mike can I ask you to ask one specific question because I'm mindful of time well I mean I just want to reflect the anxiety that is out there from various groups that we've taken evidence from and it is because you're widening the power that's the problem it's about you know widen it to achieve sustainable development it's also about widen it to possibly buy a compulsory purchase land and then give it to community groups to manage so there are real concerns out there and I share those concerns and if you want a consensual approach and a cross-party support for this bill I think that this this bit is the most consensual the most difficult bit for for certainly myself and in the conservative members of this committee we have real problems with this I think it's too broad as it appears at the moment and I welcome the you know the the the promise that you've made to look at this and I think we do need to make it a lot more focused it's far too broad at the moment and we need we need to rain it in because there are real concerns is there a question now Mr Tapp? Well the question is how we can make it acceptable to the land managers out there who have made the the thing have said that it's a real problem for them Cabinet Secretary sorry we will listen very carefully and we will study these issues very carefully I undertake that too okay Mike do you have a question? Yes I do I'd like to quote the evidence from Charles Dundas of the Woodlands Trust on compulsory purchase powers he said quote in principle the fact that the powers have not been exercised in several generations suggests that there is no cause to have them if I were cabinet secretary I would consider this a great public relations opportunity to say look at this I'm turning powers I could have down however I am not the cabinet secretary unquote minister you are the cabinet secretary would you do something that I have never known any minister of any government since 1999 do would you willingly give up these unnecessary powers? You can give it a yes or no or I'm going to think about it no that's all right I had to try but I had to try but can I say that you know my my objective is is not to to secure the best public relations my objective is to get the right legislation and it's it's it's that that is what I want to do and the fact that the powers haven't been used does not mean that one can conclude from that that they have had no influence if they did not exist then someone who was involved in negotiations and conveyancing and property transactions for 20 years if those powers did not exist as a backstop then it is quite possible that the successful outcome of negotiations secured by Simon Hodge and his team may not have occurred so I think the proposition is one that I do respect Mr Lindhurst's views and the Woodlands trust and we work closely with them but I respectfully disagree I'm going to move on to the next section if I may radar I think you're going to lead followed by John a number of people have flagged up concerns about the definition of a community body in this bill and a community body in the community empowerment bill is there a reason for the difference in definition a definition says carol said one of her many areas of expertise again no pressure the definition is different but there are four different definitions of community body within the community empowerment act there's also an existing definition of community body within the forestry act 1967 and that is the definition which is carried forward into the bill so the definitions are slightly different but they're different for different purposes we do acknowledge that a number of people have raised some questions around the sections and we're listening to those concerns moving on to some of those questions around the sections in section 18 to 20 we had evidence that they might not be required because this bill is quite different and section 17 gives ministers powers to dispose of land for sale gift or lease and that would and those giving evidence assume that that would cover community bodies so is there a reason we've got a different we've got three sections entirely for community bodies and does that give them a different status than those mentioned in section 17 the sections in the bill almost provide another avenue for communities to access publicly owned land they're there because our starting point was the forestry act 1967 and those provisions had been given to the forestry commission to overcome a specific legal hurdle we are listening to the fact that with asset transfer part 5 of the community empowerment act 2015 now in force there could be an element of overlap so we're exploring that and listening to the concerns John for yourself and specifically on the issue of part 5 there the suggestions being made by the community woodland association that that as presently worded that would give the prospect that a group could be eligible to buy that a group that could would be eligible to buy couldn't lease and vice versa is that something that you would undertake to pick up in this review I'm sorry I didn't quite follow your question you're talking about part five is the community empowerment act yes I'm afraid that is out with my scope it's something that we can if you've got a specific question about that act I can follow up but the operation of the community empowerment act and asset transfer would be something that was outside the scope of this bill right okay well I'll write you on that specific thank you a question for yourself cabinet secretary if I may please and that is about the opportunity that this legislation affords or doesn't afford for a wider pattern of ownership in operation of forestry in scotland do you see it is affording that greater opportunity well the I think that there are these opportunities irrespective of the legislation I think that there has been a move towards supporting community ownership for some time and there's established policies of which John Finnie will be well aware and they have been invoked very frequently in the islands which we represent in between us so I think that the direction of travel is in seeking to ascertain in what way communities can be involved and community ownership can play a part and that's the direction of travel that we support so there are opportunities and this bill certainly doesn't preclude or seek to constrain those opportunities in any way and if there are opportunities for more community ownership I think that that would be a very good thing although the question of structure finance and rights and responsibilities are inherently complex but you know we have seen in community energy policy and renewable energy many many community ownership projects which I think have been supported very well supported by this parliament and I see no reason why there could be similar similar opportunities in forestry thank you very much cabinet secretary I'd like to just move on now to the issue of felling and the control of felling in the past the legislation and I believe that most people would accept has has worked extremely well and that felling has worked in accordance with the law it's not quite reflected the previous felling legislation in this bill and I wondered if there was a reason why stakeholders have questioned that well I haven't been involved in discussions about this and I think partly these are questions of definition it's been drawn to my attention that definition of felling means intentionally killing a tree which did seem to me to be the first parliamentary definition of draftsmanship that seemed to have a macabre element to it but it's not actually correct because certain types of tree if they're fell they're not actually killed so that's one area where plainly an amendment is required to put that definition out of its misery as it were so you know I am aware that there's some question of definition of which we're we're well seized but I don't know which of my array of officials here Catherine would like to you know answer the wider questions convener if that's in order. Yes please. I think I think what people see when they are looking at our bill versus the act is that there is a lack of detail on some fronts I think that's what your question is about. That it can just be subsidiary to the bill to bring in the legislation sorry to to bring in felling requirements whereas in the previous legislation it was actually in the legislation. The exemptions that are in the current act and that set the parameters of the whole regime are partly in the 67 act and partly in regulations and they're amended by regulation as well what we're proposing is in this bill is a mechanism by which we review all of those exemptions with stakeholders now that the bill is public and they can understand the framework that's in place we're speaking to them about whether exemptions need to be reviewed but it's worth highlighting maybe that not all of the current exemptions are in the 67 act some of them have been amended in the act itself and some of them have been added by regulations so at the moment the picture I think is a bit muddled for practitioners and I hope that by having everything in regulations it's a bit clearer. Okay say Catherine if I can give you a specific example that we've been given power companies who want to ensure supply and keep the ground next to their power lines clear of trees currently have an exemption and may well fulfill more than five cubic metres of timber in the process of keeping a power line open and they have specifically raised with the committee the question of will they need a felling licence to do that because if they're going to it's going to clog up the system. The intention is that we recreate exemptions that are in place like theirs where they work or we tweak them to make them work better in the future there's no suggestion that we would drop an exemption such as that one. Okay say and other issues some people have said that felling firewood timber for firewood was a good idea we've had one person that said that hasn't would that be an exemption that you would carry forward and my question I guess is to give some confidence to those people who are managing forestry that these don't take a huge amount of time to implement and there isn't an interregnum between when the bill is passed at which stops people getting on with proper management and silver culture operations. I hope that some of the work that we're doing now is allaying some of those fears we're in contact with people that have given evidence to you and others that we know have an interest in order to make sure that they're all involved in the review of what's in place at the moment. What's in place at the moment is the starting point for those conversations. The other thing that might be worth mentioning is that quite a lot of the exemptions are not exemptions that will have such a great impact on the forestry sector. They are things like allowing people to fell in orchards and we're very alert to the fact that we don't just need to be speaking to the sector we need to be speaking to everyone that is affected by all of those what might be considered peripheral exemptions too. Carol, you want to come in on that. Can I just make up a follow-up point? It's about general commencement of the bill. There's a power towards the end of the bill to commence various sections at different times, so it's fully the intention that there would not be a gap between the existing 67 regime and the operation of the new one. Okay, and one further question, if I may, is that, and I regret that I can't point myself or point you to the direct section in the bill, the proposed bill, it says that there can be forestry, can directed to be felled in good economic and sustainable forest management. Does that mean that the cabinet secretary could demand a forest owner to fell timber at that particular time for economic reasons or is it just for health reasons? Carry forward from the 67 act, felling directions are currently available for the purposes of timber management. We've slightly extended it in the bill to allow it to cover any aspect of SFM. So, just so I'm clear, does the cabinet secretary specifically, when it comes to timber management, we've heard evidence during this Parliament that there will be a period of, in 2035, when timber will be in short supply, that he may use the power to instruct people to fell their forest to smooth out the supply shortfall for economic reasons or is that not the reason for that policy? No, I don't think that's the intention of this provision, it's merely a carry forward which is extended to update it, but plainly I entirely agree, convener, with those who point out that there's expected to be a dip in the anticipated annual tonnage of production circa 2035 and this is an important factor economically because I'm told that it influences potential investment decisions and the willingness of funders to invest and therefore I think we all agree forestry is a long-term business, we have targets because we recognise we need to have a balance of a mix of different species of trees, each tree in the right place, but we also require as well as those environmental and silver cultural dictates to meet the needs of the economy and that means productive species. So I think those who make that argument make it well, but the particular provision, the bill, which we've been discussing, is so far as I'm aware, not intended to achieve the conferral of powers on me for that purpose, but I think Barry is straining at the leash to get in. Sorry Barry, it was simply for the convener's clarification the provision in section 31 sets out clearly that the felling of trees is required to prevent deterioration or further deterioration of the quality of timber to improve the growth of other trees or to prevent or reduce harm caused by the presence of the trees, so the parameters are clearly set out on the legislation. So we're confident it's not going to force people to fell trees for economic reason. Okay, thank you. Just move on to the next area, which is Stuart. Thank you, convener, and I want to go to chapter 6, which is about notices to comply, etc. I propose to deal with this in two parts, one of which is if there is a register, who should be the register, which I think has been in the evidence that we've had, one of the areas. First of all, a brief bit on is there a need for a register in the sense that it appears that the drafting of the bill is directed at ensuring that enduring conditions, which I think primarily relate to replanting after felling, are in the public domain seen and acted upon. Is that the policy intention behind having this in the bill? Is the system working or not working as it exists just now? Well, the bill enables but doesn't require registration of notices and the registration in the land register ensures that conditions and directions are legally enforceable if ownership changes, so they're binding upon singular successors. The risk is if they're not so registered, then they're not binding upon singular successors, and therefore the conditions which you wish to have observed and implemented may not be by a singular successor. That's the rationale, as I understand it. As far as the practice is concerned, a Simon or Joe might be able to speak better than I can about the practical aspects of this. Joe? If we issue restocking notices, if somebody fails and they don't restock, it's making sure that we're able to enforce those. The enabling act of this isn't a requirement, as the cabinet secretary has said. That's the important thing to have in place here, is that we have that power if there is a change of ownership to make sure that that site gets restocked, which is basically what sustainable forest management is about. Presumably we're referring to section 35.2, which says that Scottish ministers may apply to register a notice, etc. The context in which we're being pointed at that that would happen is change your ownership of the land and hence the transfer of the obligation. How would you know that that sale of land has taken place? I think that Catherine is right. Catherine, sorry, everyone's sort of looking at each other. I'm not sure whether that's a sloping shoulders, but Catherine, it seems to have landed with you. We're looking at how this would work in practice. I'm working with Joe's teams to look at how it would work in practice. The intention is that it would be a risk-based approach. Areas where change of ownership is highly unlikely, you may not register from the outset. You might wait to see if ownership changes. Areas where you think ownership is going to change, you can register straight away. We're looking at how all of that would work in practice to ensure that it's a proportionate use of this enabling power. On that basis, when might you be able to come up with an idea of how many registrations there might be in a typical year? I suspect in what you're saying that you couldn't give the committee that right now. I couldn't give that right now, but I'm working with Joe's teams in terms of when we might have an answer. We need to wait until we see what shape the bill is in after stage 2. Right. Whether or not the minister has applied to register or not, that has no effect on the legal obligation that will pass to the new owner that derives from notices. I take it. The new owner is not bound unless something is registered. So, if there is no registration of the notice, then no nothing passes to the new owner. Right. I think that's quite an important point that I hadn't understood. Let me, because we could spend a lot of time in this, and I don't think that we need to yet. The thing that came up in evidence was if there is to be a register, who it is, maintains it. At present, the bill is drafted at section 39 and 40 and so on, that it's Registers of Scotland, but it's suggested by our witnesses that the Forestry Commission has a very effective online list of these notices. Leaving aside the issue of the notices themselves, is that something that the minister is minded to consider where the register might be published and how it might be administered. I think that there was an argument that wasn't much rebutted when we heard it, that we've got something that works and why bother to change that. It does work in practice, although we will come back to the committee specifically on this issue, because those who purchase a forest generally do so because they want to own a forest, and therefore they require, they accept, and they do, abide by the silver cultural good practice and the FC standards. That's just the way it is, and why would you buy a forest unless you wanted to carry out that work? For that reason, convener, this has been a theoretical problem rather than a practical one, although I think that it is important that we do come back specifically on that, because that might inform the committee's approach and what it takes. In response to the question, we agree that the alternative that notices to comply with continuing conditions could be included on an FCS web-based register rather than registered with Register of Scotland. That is an alternative, and there would be transparency, but what it wouldn't allow is for enforcement of the conditions after a change of ownership. If the new owner is not bound in contract to obtemper those conditions, then the new owner wouldn't, in the absence of title conditions, be under any direct contractual nexus, if you see what I mean. In practice, those conditions will almost certainly be dealt with in the convincing between the solicitors of the purchase and sale of forestry, which is not for the non-specialist. The risk is that the new owner could claim ignorance of the conditions if they did not appear in the normal solicitor searches in the land obligation section of the land certificate or in the burden section of the seizing register. I am sorry, but can I clarify? If somebody does buy a forest and it is not registered and the conditions are not transferred to the conditions, then stay with the person who sold the forest, which would be my understanding of it. If that is the case, I would suggest that any solicitor that was involved in it might not only be running for the hills, but might be running for the trees as well. Exactly. That is why I said earlier that I believe this to be a recognisable and clearly understandable scenario that could arise, but in practice, certainly with commercial forestry, it would be most unlikely to arise because those solicitors would make sure that their seller client was protected by the transmission of any obligations incumbent upon the seller to the purchaser. Can I just bring Stuart back? You may be able to cover this as well. It is just a very small point that has emerged, what I have heard. Is the power that the bill provides for the minister to apply for a register for notice enduring, in other words, at any point after the sale for the next 50 years or is it time limited? I do not see how it is time limited. Sorry, just to be clear, I am not talking about the condition being time limited. No, I am talking about the point at which the minister may register a notice. That is not time limited, but when Joe's staff give permission to fail, the conditions that are given will not be forever. Those conditions are generally about restocking, and they are time limited. You would not register them after the time when they would have lapsed. No, but the minister on his officials can apply to register a notice at any point during which the notice remains current, notwithstanding how many changes of ownership that may have been in the period since the notice was issued. Cabinet Secretary, now Barry is coming in. That is more of a legal examination than anything else, but I think that we will have to come back to you on these points unless Barry has got… No, no. I think that the policy intention is that, where you foresee conditions running on to the future with whether there would be an intervening change of ownership, an effective way of ensuring that the future owners bound by them is making sure that, at a point before that ownership transfers, the notice is registered. I think that we are going to move on. I think that it is fair to note that the evidence that we have taken which Cabinet Secretary will have picked up on the map-based system that is currently available through the Forestry Commission system is generally being perceived as quite a good system. On that note, John, if you would like to come to the final bit. Thank you, convener, and perhaps not surprisingly, I wanted to look at finance. I have broadly got three points. Firstly, in relation to section 64 charging, Scottish ministers may, for the purposes or connection with the carrying out of the functions, impose charges of such amounts as they consider appropriate. We have had some evidence from witnesses that they are nervous that that gives quite a blank sheet to ministers. Could you give us any clarification as to how you would use this and that there would not be excessive costs on owners? Yes, I can by saying that there is no intention to change current Government funding arrangements for forestry. The power is designed to underpin the current arrangements whereby Forest Enterprise Scotland is able to trade goods on the open market at a tune of £85.4 million in 2016-17. As I understand it, there are powers to enable flexibility for Forest Enterprise Scotland, but Mr Hodge could expand on that if that is necessary. As a public corporation, we secure 80 per cent of our revenue stream from trading. I would defer to a legal opinion in terms of terminology, but that is critical to our sustainable financial management of the estate. I do not see it as such as charging. It is actually enabling us to participate, as the cabinet secretary said, in trading in terms of goods and services. My second point is that, in relation to the financial memorandum, there are costs for three or four years for the kind of changeover period. Some of that relates to IT and some of that relates to branding and website development to the tune of some £4 million—£4.25 million, I think, over the three years. Again, we had some concern from witnesses that that £4.25 million would be coming out of the normal forestry budget and therefore effectively would mean fewer trees or fewer something on the ground because money would be going into presumably painting vehicles, giving people new uniforms, all that kind of thing. There was a request from some that money should be an extra funding from the Government so that the practical work would not be restricted. Can I ask how you would respond to those witnesses? Well, those are important issues that we have looked at carefully and on which further detailed work is being done. Let me just take it in components. First, in relation to the IT spend, as estimated, IT is a topic in which members know I take a close interest. Existing forestry commission IT is in fact no longer fit for purpose. It needs upgrading anyway. If we weren't here, and this may not come as a huge surprise to members of this committee, I also know share my interest in matters IT. The IT system is no longer fit for purpose. It needs upgrading because of the age of the infrastructure and the lack of investment in recent years. The forestry commission is already taking action to ensure business continuity and protection against system failure and moving connectivity from forestry commission network to the Scottish wide area network SWAN. The GB layer of the forestry commission that is provided central services such as IT is in the process of being dismantled as a part of the internal FC chain. I guess what I am saying is that even if it weren't, if the building exists, there would need to be considerable spend on IT anyway. How much additional spend is necessary would be a legitimate question and we are happy to provide further information as we go forward. As far as the branding issues go, there will be some costs. Let me be absolutely clear. I wish that those costs would be minimised and kept to a minimum. I think that that is a sensible, commonsensical approach, and I have asked that approach to be taken. I think that that is clearly understood and a view that is widely shared by everybody involved in this. I am able to say that those costs will not impact on the delivery of other programmes. Funding is coming mainly from reserves that Forest Enterprise Scotland is able, because of its prudent management, to maintain as a result of having public co-operation status for accounting purposes. The range of the costs that you will note from the financial memorandum are quite wide and, therefore, there is further work to be done. Those are indicative figures and they are not hard estimates. Mr Mason will know that, as an accountant, there is a difference. I just wanted to reassure members that this is something that I am taking a personal close interest in as officials are well aware and will continue to do so to ensure that the costs are minimised. We will be retaining the green for the staff at whom I think we would want to have that livery and badge approach maintained. I think that when SPT stopped having the trains painted in their own colours, it was agreed that rather than just repainting all the trains immediately, it would only be when they were due for repainting that the new livery would be brought in. I wonder whether that would be a model, like with vehicles, that you could not have to repaint all the vehicles, but when they are replaced, they would come out in the new colours. Is the approach in principle—Simon, do you want to add to that? It is exactly the approach that we might look to take, particularly if the direction of travel is to evolve the brand rather than a completely dramatic change. Just to advise the committee, because the national forest estate is in many places over Scotland that we have around 7,000 items that carry the forest commission name and brand, and vehicles are one of them, anyone who has visited one of the forests for recreation purposes will see various signs. That is why, potentially, the scale of the activity is very great, but I think that there are good opportunities to take an approach that uses the normal replacement cycles for various items. We also need to be mindful of the need in future to maintain clarity to stakeholders and visitors and ensure that there is no question that visitors do not feel welcome and able to engage with us as an organisation about their visit. I think that we are pressed for time, but my final point would be that witnesses have raised the concern that there might be less information in the budget concerning forestry because of the reorganisation. Maybe we can get that in writing if there is not an immediate answer, that there would not be any less information available for the committee or for the public through this change of process. I can give that assurance. The bill has no impact on funding for forestry in Scotland. Funding will continue to be provided via the Scottish budget and approved and scrutinised by the Scottish Parliament and the committee. If I have learnt anything, that will mean that more information will be provided, not less. Thank you very much. Cabinet Secretary and your colleagues, that concludes our questioning on this, our final evidence session on the forestry bill. There are some issues that have been brought up that are quite interesting and would help us to determine how we deal with the report and also post the report when the bill comes forward to the committee. As soon as we get those, it would be very much appreciated. I would like to thank you all for the evidence that you gave me this morning. I briefly suspend the meeting for five minutes to allow witnesses to change, so I suspend the meeting for five minutes. We are now going to move on to agenda item four on the agenda, which is review of legislation governing small holdings in Scotland. Part 11 of the Land Reform Act 2016 required the Scottish Government to review the legislation governing small land holdings and to lay a report of that review before the Scottish Parliament. The report was published in March. Cabinet Secretary has remained here and is joined by Jane Willoughby, the team leader for the agricultural holdings and Claudia Duff, the policy manager for small holdings at the Scottish Government. Cabinet Secretary, would you like to say something at the outset before we go on to questions? Thank you, convener. The statutory small holdings of which there are around 74 remaining in Scotland and located out with the crofting counties are tenanted holdings regulated by the small land holdings acts 1886 to 1931. They are a part of Scotland's agricultural heritage and form part of the fabric of land tenure in Scotland. The Land Reform Scotland Act 2016 required us to conduct a review of the legislation governing small land holdings and this was laid before Parliament on 30 March this year and a number of policy recommendations were made and this is what we are here to discuss today. A written consultation, convener, was sent to all 74 small land holders across Scotland and to their landlords. A total of 22 responses, including five from landlords, were received and those responses were from 23 per cent of all small land holders. Officials followed up the written consultation with phone calls to small land holders and landlords. The written consultation was also supported by a number of well-attended government-led workshops and meetings with landlords. Officials also attended industry events. The legal review has focused on the issues highlighted via the consultation, such as the accessibility of the legislation and how it has impacted the understanding of rights for small land holders and landlords, how key security of tenure is to all small land holders and the issues concerning accessing funding and banking. The emerging issue is centred around the clarity of legislation, a possible right to buy and having a single representative body. I am sure that you will all have read the recommendations and that we can go on to have a good discussion on them. Small farms can, convener, provide an important part of access into agriculture for new entrants and are essential for the sustainability of the industry and for those farming part-time or on a smaller scale. However, statutory small land holdings are in a unique position. The review is therefore the first step towards understanding how they contribute to land tenure to the tenancy sector and to our vibrant rural economy. I welcome committee members' feedback during this session. Of course, myself and my officials will consider that as the policy work develops. Thank you, cabinet secretary. The first question is from John Mason. Thanks, convener. I suppose that as a city person, as an outsider, I can maybe just be a little bit of a devil's advocate, but if there used to be 50,000 small land holdings and there is now 74, can we really say that they are still part of the fabric of Scottish land or are they something that is dying out or are they something that we could try and expand on? To the 74, they are pretty important. Each individual is important, I think that it is obvious to say, and I am sure that Mr Mason agrees with that proposition. However, he makes a fair point that the number of small land holders has, I gather, reduced substantially over the years and kind of withered on the vine perhaps. One reason for that may have been that there hasn't really been much a chance, much opportunity to have this discussion, to have this debate, to consider the issues that are of interest of concern to the small land holders. If you like, there is a question mark because of the relatively small number of people who still possess this unique form of land holding, and I think that this Parliament's effort to understand the issues involved and the time that we are taking today at your member's instigation, convener, is a worthwhile starting point to seeing whether we can answer Mr Mason's question positively. You feel that there is at least a possibility that the sector could expand in the future? Of course there is, yes. The next question is from John Finnie. My colleague Alison Johnson had a keen interest in this in the previous session, and one of the challenges has been about understanding the legislation. With regard to the report, the Scottish Government undertook to do a couple of things, and I would just like to ask very specific questions on that. One of them was to commission an independent legal expert to write a guide to the legislation. I wonder, are you able to give an outline of the timetable for commissioning and publishing that guide? Yes, the provision of a guide to the current small land holding legislation could help small land owners to gain a better understanding of the legal framework. There isn't a guide at the moment, so there isn't a text book. That's very unusual, because in every area of law there are recognised legal texts that some of which have gained authoritative status and are unaid to understanding legal rights and responsibilities in all areas of Scotland's private law. We are working with Sir Crispin Agnew, an expert in this field, and we fully expect that the guide will be available by the end of the year. Okay, thank you very much. We'll look forward to that coming out. Another fact that was going to be considered was a webpage for small holders to provide advice and support again. Are you able to see when that will be made public, and what information will be provided on that webpage, please? Okay, could Jen Willoughby answer this, please? We have that webpage available on the Scottish Government website. That's already up and running. That contains a variety of information that we think will be helpful to small land holders around the different issues that they raised during the review. So, there's information on there about how to access different sorts of funding, how to engage with our PID colleagues, various different bits of information that we felt that would be helpful to small land holders. It also links them to various of the bodies that might be helpful to them and to all of our other webpages as well. Okay, thank you very much indeed. That's very helpful. Thank you. Richard, I think that you're the next question. Yes, it's basically along the lines that John Mason was saying. So, in 1880—go back as far as that—50,000 of them, now they're 74, covering 0.2 per cent of tenancy land or 0.5 of agricultural land. Small land holders don't have the right to buy, as farmers' secure 1991 tendencies do, or an absolute right to buy, as crofters do. However, why is that? As both the agricultural holdings legislative review group and the land reform review group have recommended that small land holders should have the right to buy, why have you chosen not to do that since they're only 74 and we resolved the situation by allowing them to buy? First of all, Mr Lyle mentions that the number of small land holders has reduced, and it's fair to say that the use of this form of tenure has fallen into diswetude and disuse and has been replaced by other statutory forms of tenancy such as those under the Ikeholdings Act or private contractual arrangements that have been devised by parties contracting on a private basis. So, this form of land tenure has sort of fallen into disuse. I think that's fair to say in respect of new instances of it. One of the issues that has been raised is the right to buy as has been mentioned. Plainly, I think that the first step is, because we are at the early stages of this debate following the review, is to explore exactly the nature of the current legal tenure and the peculiarities relating to it about ownership, which I think are unique in respect of the house, but not the land that is owned, as I understand it. I think that the first step would be to see the guide that Sir Crispin provides in relatively short order. To look at that as a statement of the law would be a good starting point about considering any move on from that. My right to mind would be a very significant undertaking, and there are a number of issues that would have to be considered. There are significant legal and ECHR issues, and members will be aware of the provisions of the case of Salveson v Riddle, for example. I'm not expressing a legal opinion here. I'm merely making the point that these are sensitive and difficult legal areas, and the Scottish Government has no plans to legislate on these matters at the moment. On the other hand, we are willing to continue and keen to continue to commence this debate, which is what we are doing, and I think that that debate will be informed by Sir Crispin's very welcome contribution to it. Can I ask your officials through you, convener? Has any of these 74 people made a request to buy? Do we speak to them? Have we been in contact with them? They are free to make their private arrangements, so it will be up to each individual to do so. I would be astonished if there hasn't been private contractional arrangements made over the years by individuals with their landlord to come to a negotiated conclusion, which is always the best way to move on and to reach an alternative arrangement. Small landowners are free to make their private arrangements, but the right to buy has certainly been identified by some of them as being of interest to them. Although, of course, I think that I did point out that we only have formal responses from about just under a quarter of the small landowners involved, which is a quarter of 74. Richard R.H.A. I'm fine, thank you. Peter, I think that the next question is yours. Given that we are told that the last primary legislation on small landholdings was way back in 1931, there is no modern small landholding legislation. Given that situation, why have you chosen not to ask the Scottish Law Commission to review the law on small landholdings and to recommend reforms? Do you agree that the current legal situation of small landowners is unfair? As I said, the first step is to provide some clarity as to what the law actually is, and Sir Crispin has agreed to do that, and he's working with us on that. I think that that's the first step. The second step would be, I imagine, for the committee to consider that and, in the light of the responses of small landowners, we haven't given consideration to whether we ask the Scottish Law Commission to do any work on that, but that would be an option open to us, and it may well be an appropriate option, and I'm certainly not ruling it out. I think that we need to go in stages here not to ignore the fruits of the work that we're doing at the moment in direct response to the review, which I hope will be work that is welcomed by the committee. I mean, as to whether the law is fair or unfair, I think that those are matters of subjective judgment, and I think that because I've got the duty as minister to consider things in the round, it would be premature for me to opine on that general concept of fairness at the moment in the absence of the completion of the work that we've agreed to do, and which will be done fairly soon after all. The fact that we're having this debate today is the first time perhaps for half a century or more that this has been considered at all, so I think that it is a good thing. For any small landholders that are listening to this or who read this, we are interested in your position. We value the role of small farmers in Scotland, and we're debating it because we want to see if there are ways that we can help, but we also have a duty to consider things very carefully when it comes to possible law reform. I'll just conclude by saying, but it will appear that these 74 have been left behind somewhat, and the law has moved on in various areas, and they seem to have been missed out in the whole thing. If you have any specific proposals, I'm very happy to consider them. The Scottish Government said that it would consider whether small holdings should be included in the remit of either the Crofting Commission or the Tenant Farming Commission. First of all, do you agree that it needs an umbrella or a body to do it, and who do you think that should be? It's right to say that small landholdings do not currently fall within the remit of any organisation. Given the relatively small numbers, it would not be a sensible step to go to the expense of creating an entirely new commission. I don't think that that would be practical, so the review recommends that the work could be undertaken by either the Crofting Commission or the Tenant Farmers Commissioner, and coverage by an umbrella body could provide the sector with an independent source of information and dispute resolution for some issues. Those bodies do not and would not replace the jurisdiction of the Scottish Land Court, but we are in discussions with both the Scottish Land Commission and the Crofting Commission, convener, regarding the potential options. The Crofting Commission has indicated that it may be agreeable in principle to expanding its remit to including statutory small landholders, subject to further consideration of resource implications and discussion at the board. However, extending the Crofting Commission's remit would require legislative change, but we would welcome the views of the committee on this issue. If it needs legislative change, that's one thing, but do you have a view? You suggested that the Crofting Commission might be able to take it on. I think that the committee would like to know what your suggestion is. Would it be the Crofting Commission? If so, would you then bring forward legislation, the timescales? Could you give us an idea of your opinion on that? I haven't formed an opinion yet, because I think that we're at the start of a debate. Generally speaking, it's prudent to wait until the debate is finished before ministers come to decision. I'd be aware of any view that I express here, not as Fergus Ewing, but as the Government minister. I'm not being overly cautious. It's just that this is the first time that we're debating these things. I think that it would be wrong for me to rush into a view, particularly since we're talking about third parties here. We are in discussions. The Crofting Commission, I've said, are willing. The Crofting Commission, of course, deals with crofters. The nearest analogy to small landowners is probably with crofters. I think that there would be a fit there, in principle, which is presumably why the Crofting Commission expressed its willingness to explore further. I think that Festina Lente should be the approach here, and that's how I'm minded to proceed. Stuart Scott has a small question, and then we're going to move on to Jeremy. It's an observation. Given that the Crofting Commission is an elected body in a geographical area, and of course a number of those small holdings are out with the area that is covered, I merely suggest that the Government proceed with caution because of that mismatch that there would be people who were differentiated against some of their number by being able to influence the outcomes and others. That was all. I think that that's an observation. Jeremy, do you want to go with the next question? Thank you, convener. I have a keen interest in this as many of the small landowners are on the island of Arran, which is in my region. Arran, I should point out, is a real island. There are also many in other parts of Scotland that are outside of the designated crofting areas, such as in Ayrshire, Dumfrieshire and other parts of the Borders. When we are looking at whether we should be linking the strategy or the legislation around small landholdings with crofting, what attention has been given to the complexities that that might give, given that many of those landholdings are not in designated crofting areas? Has the Minister had any further thoughts since we last discussed crofting strategy of whether we should actually be linking both legislation and strategy for those different types of holdings? Thank you for pointing out that Arran is an island. Crofting and small landholdings have strong historical ties, so we welcome all views of the relationship between the two and how that can be taken forward in the future. Mr Stevenson has made a very relevant observation about one of the practicalities that the Crofting Commission is a body that board members are elected. The small landholdings are outwith the crofting counties, but they would not, without legislative reform, have an elected voice in that body. That would thereby, where they would be brought within the ambit of the Crofting Commission, create an anomaly that I am quite sure MSPs would ask to be resolved or dealt with by one way or another. The commission indicated that it felt that there was merit in bringing small landholdings and crofting legislation together on the same register, while retaining the separate identities that one would have to of both types of tenure. It could be possible for a new administrative register to be put in place, and that will be considered as part of our retrospective research project. At the moment, for the reasons that I have already set out, no final decision has been made on the inclusion of small landholdings in any crofting bill. The consultation that we have just recently launched on crofting is wide, and it will give consultees the opportunity to comment on the links with small landholdings, and we will review the matter in the light of the consultation responses, including any comments that Mr Greene's constituents in Arran may wish to make. The final question is to Gail Ross. What is your timetable for taking any practical action to progress the commitments made? We are taking forward the review recommendations. Now, I have indicated the timeline of some of the webpages up and running. The guide will be available. Research has been progressed. I would like to come back to the committee sometime in the early course of next year to see what stage we have to then, particularly if that permits the guide to be published, and for us to just consider all aspects of the review recommendations. I hope that that kind of timescale would be acceptable to the committee. Those things do, if necessity, take some time to develop. I am very pleased that we have, for the first time in Scotland, made an effort to look into and show respect and interest for a small but interesting and important part of Scottish rural life. That is all our questions. I would just like to confirm that the committee takes interest in small holdings because they think that it is important. I think that the very fact, as you have highlighted, that it has not been addressed for a long period of time means that we are keen to make sure that it does not slip off our radar. We will look to ask you to come back and maybe when the legal opinions are clearer. We will take you up on that offer. Thank you very much for your time this morning, Cabinet Secretary. I would now like to move the meeting into private session.