Felly, introduce the particular Waist Minister who'll start with commentaries. Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the eighth meeting in 2015 of the Rule Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee. Before we move to the first item, remind members to switch off mobile phones that may interfere with the sound system. Committee members will of course be able to consult tablets, as will witnesses, for the matters according to their business at the meeting. We have an apology today from Claudia Beamish. Agenda item 1 is the Community Empowerment Scotland Bill, and this agenda item is taking evidence on stage 2 amendments to the Community Empowerment Scotland Bill on the crofting community right to buy, as well as on the draft regulations on abandoned and neglected land. I welcome Dr Eileen McLeod, our Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform this morning, with her supporting officer, Stephen Patherara, the deputy director of land and tenancy reform, and Dave Thompson, land reform and tenancy unit in the Scottish Government. Welcome, minister. I don't know whether you wish to make any short introductory statement. Yes, I do, convener, if that would be okay. I'm delighted to be invited to give evidence to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee on my proposed stage 2 amendment to the Community Empowerment Scotland Bill, seeking to amend the crofting community right to buy. I'd like to thank the convener, Rob Gibson and the members of Racky, for agreeing to take on this not inconsiderable part of the Community Empowerment Bill on behalf of the local government and regeneration committee. I'd also like to thank all stakeholders who responded to the call for evidence on the proposed amendments and attended the meetings that my officials held in Edinburgh, inverness, the Isle of Harris and the Kailu of Le Calche during December last year. The evidence from those who participated has been instrumental in shaping the amendments. I strongly believe that the crofting community right to buy is a tool that can be of great benefit to crofting communities. It's therefore vital that those amendments that introduce the much-needed flexibility and simplification are introduced at the earliest opportunity. Not only two crofting community bodies have made use of the crofting community right to buy legislation in over 10 years. However, we have heard at last week's stakeholders evidence session that even the existence of the legislation has helped to change culture by encouraging crofting communities to buy their croft land. The framework of the legislation acts as a useful backstop to encourage the parties around the table to open negotiations. Earlier this month, the opportunity for the community of barvis on the Isle of Lewis over 80 per cent voted in favour of a community buy-out of the barvis estate. That is an estate that contains 300 crofts in the region. That is why I strongly believe in the principles of the crofting community right to buy, which is designed to empower our crofting communities, or to work as a backstop to negotiate a community acquisition that is outwith the framework of the act. However, I recognise that there have been elements of the legislation that could cause great difficulty to communities wishing to exercise their right to buy, not least the mapping requirements that communities are required to fulfil, which stakeholders highlight as being particularly onerous. I want to make the legislation more flexible where necessary and more straightforward for communities to use. I have listened to what stakeholders have told me and I am introducing a number of measures to address the flaws that have discouraged its use, including the mapping requirements, and how the legislation is used to define a crofting community. I am happy to answer questions that the committee may wish to answer in response to those amendments. Thank you very much. I can assure you that we have quite a number of questions. To start off with just thinking about your statement that it would make it easier for crofting communities to use, while at the same time continuing to strike a fair balance between the rights of landowners and crofting communities, would you like to expand on that statement and indicate how many crofting communities you think might take advantage of the simplified process? The proposed changes will encourage more communities to access the right to buy by simplifying some parts of the act and opening up more options for communities in others. For example, we have simplified the mapping requirements, which has been put forward as one of the key areas of concern with stakeholders. We have also increased the options for communities by expanding the types of organisations that community bodies can use within the act, including Scottish Charitable Incorporated organisations and community benefit companies. We have removed some of the burdens on communities, such as the need to provide auditing of accounts, as well as allowing for ballot expenses to be claimed under certain circumstances. At the moment, communities have to fund the ballot themselves. I believe that all those amendments that are taken as a whole will encourage communities to think about what they can do to take responsibility for their futures. In terms of the question about the number of communities that will take up the opportunity, it is difficult, as you will appreciate, to estimate, but even with the act, as it stands just now, many communities use the act's existence, as I said in opening remarks, to encourage dialogue with owners, leading to purchases outwith the act. I hope that the amendments will encourage even more communities to follow their example. I understand the context. It is something that pushes the envelope out so that more people can consider the matter. In considering that, we need to define what a crofting community is, so Alex Ferguson would like to ask you a question about that. Thank you for that, convener. Section 71 amends the definition of a crofting community, and attempts to widen the definition of a crofting community. In doing so, as we have learned last week in particular, by amending it in the way that it is suggested, it will include owner-occupier crofters who are registered in the registers of Scotland's crofting register within the definition of a crofting community, but it will not include those on the crofting commission's register of crofts to a complete outsider like me. That seems a very strange omission. While we have been told that capturing what is a crofting community in legislative terms is not easy, oral evidence last week suggested that the provision would produce something of a distinction between those two definitions. I wondered whether you could explain why you think that it is appropriate to go down that route. The proposed amendments would amend the definition of a crofting community in section 715 to address those crofters who are excluded by the existing legislation. Alex Ferguson is quite right to say that the proposed amendment includes the owner-occupier crofters who are registered on the registers of Scotland's crofting register within the definition of the crofting community, but it does not include those on the crofting commission's register of crofts at this point in time. The reason for that is that, although the crofting commission does collect that information, as Susan Walker said from the crofting commission last week, it has no duty to keep owner-occupier details. The Crofters Scotland Act 1993 sets out the information that must be on the register of crofts. At the moment, that does not include the owner-occupier details. The Scottish Government intends to work with the crofting commission, and we will consider bringing forward legislative changes to include owner-occupiers within the information that must be included. Until that process has been completed, it is not possible to rely on the register of crofts for the owner-occupier information. That is why it is proposed that the Scottish ministers take a regulation making power to expand the definition of crofting community at a later date. Such expansion could then include owner-occupier crofters who are registered in the register of crofts. At the moment, that needs to be carried out in a two-stage process, using the ministerial power to add the owner-occupier crofters who are recorded on the register of crofts at a later date, when a legal matter is addressed by the crofting commission. Thank you for that. You answered the second part of my question, which is the purpose of the further powers that you propose to take to expand the definition of crofting in order to include later data when it is more guaranteed to be correct, I guess, is the way to put it. You have answered that. Thank you very much. Another issue that was raised with us by Susan Walker of the Crofters commission was that the proposals appeared to remove the residency requirement. She raised an issue on that point, on the grounds that could there be a situation whereby, if that is the case, whereby absentee crofters could influence the outcomes of a community ballot, for instance. I just wondered what your thoughts were on that. On the issue of residency, we have removed the requirement that the tenants must be resident within 16km of the crofting community and replaced it with a requirement that tenants registered in the crofting register or register of crofts, owner-occupiers registered in the crofting register. There have been issues with the distance itself in terms of just where the distance is measured from, so if it is in the middle of a crofting community or the edge, for example. That is why we sought to simplify matters in keeping with the rest of the changes. As you rightly pointed out, there are concerns that the removal of the distance element could lead to an undue influence being exerted by absentee crofters, who would be defined as being part of the crofting community for the purposes of the act. Under the ballot rules, there are two elements for demonstrating that the community supports the proposals of the community body. The majority of those voting are in favour, so those people must be people of the crofting community. The second is that the majority of the tenants who are tenants of crofts within the land that the crofting community has applied to buy are in favour. To the best of our knowledge, there are not any crofting communities where the majority of the tenants' crofters are absentees, which is the only situation in which any undue influence could be asserted. I hope that I understand that. I suggested last week that, because we are moving to a map-based register, the crofting commission register, as it is at the moment, is just a list that will eventually become redundant. We are in a transition period, and Derek Flynn said that he looked forward to that, and there was a lot of laughter around the room. The problem that we have is to know how accurate the lists are that are in the crofting commission's register. Could you reassure us that you are happy that those lists are competent and up-to-date? I am happy, but I will hand over to Dave to just talk through some of the detail around that. I just said that there is a transition period that we are in. The register of crofts, if I get it right way round, is the existing one where the crofting commission collected. The register of crofts is a newer one, which, as we said last week, could take up to 80 years to fully populate. We intend to include information from both those registers at the moment. That is where the regulation-making power comes in, so that we ensure that the information on both those registers is recorded by the likes of the crofting commission as a duty or an obligation to do so, and not as information that they collect in terms of making it as complete as they would like. That is where the regulation-making power comes in, so that we can then, once the crofting commission is collecting all the data, we can ensure that those people are all included in the definition of the community. That is nothing like having an 80-year legacy ahead of you. I stress the fact that I am totally outside of the crofting law and that it is a complete mystery. Every time I look at it, I am more confused. However, what you just said to me suggests that it makes all the more sense to use both registers in registering. I cannot quite see where there is somebody registered on the crofting commission's register of crofts that is safe, secure and knows that it is the correct information. The amendment is not going to take that ownership into account. It just seems as far as I can see, and it just seems very strange not to do so. Am I too simplistic? No, you are correct in what you are saying. The difference is about the duty that the crofting commission has to collect details of owner occupiers. At the moment, it is collected, but it is not a duty. In theory, at any point, it could stop doing so. If we rely on the bill as a measure of who is a crofting community, we could be left in a situation where we are asking for information that is not being collected anymore. What we want to do is impose that duty on the commission to collect that information and then use the regulation-making power to include that as part of the definition. That is very helpful. I am glad that we have got it cleared up. That is the sort of work that we are going to take forward with the crofting commission. Thank you for that. Moving on to croftland mapping, I am going to speak to on-off. In your opening remarks, you briefly acknowledged the issue of croftland mapping requirements. The amendments are going to croftland mapping as lodged repeal some of the existing mapping requirements, for example, all sewers, pipes, lines, watercourses, et cetera. Oral evidence last week broadly supported the amendment, and Derek Flynn stated that the transfer of ownership of a Highland Croft in this state is a massive problem because it tends to be a jigsaw puzzle with lots of pieces removed. Peter Peacock of Committee Land Scotland also warmly welcomed the proposed changes. However, SLE, in written evidence, as you might expect, said that they do not agree with the proposal as it will affect inter-allya evaluations and details of ownership. Are inter-allya evaluations and details of ownership likely to be affected by the amendment? Can you clarify how a fair balance between the rights of the landowner and crofting communities will be ensured? We are maintaining the balance, so I will start with your last question first. We are maintaining the balance that was there before. Obviously, we are just improving the process, providing greater flexibility for community bodies, trying to streamline and simplify the crofting community right-to-buy process, in line with the feedback that we received from stakeholders. Landowners will still have the opportunity to put their views across and they will still be entitled to compensation. Factors that protect landowners' interests are still going to be there. What we are trying to do with the mapping requirements is that some feel that those requirements may not be particularly onerous, referring to the fact that the information is known to the applicant body or the existence of which it is on reasonable diligent inquiry, capable of ascertaining. This information is easier to obtain for small areas of land, with less chance of technical errors in producing such maps. However, they are thought to be particularly difficult for large crofting estates. The complexity of maps, which are far in excess of those required when submitting a first registration to the register of Scotland, is often cited as a reason for community bodies not engaging with the process in the first place. The maps provided were keen to make sure that we were removing the complex element of having to include the details of sewers, pipes, lines, watercourses or other conduits and fences, dikes, ditches or other boundaries, but the maps provided will still have to be sufficiently detailed to allow checks to be made against the ownership of the land in question and later on in relation to the valuation of the land should the application be approved. That covers it. It is good to reiterate that the majority of the contributors to the evidence have broadly welcomed the amendments. Good, thank you. We are moving on to identification of owner tenants and certain creditors. Mike Russell. Thank you. Scottish land and estates are broadly happy with this amendment. Everybody else is somewhat unhappy with it, particularly those who are experts in crofting law. You, I think, very correctly said at the beginning that the purpose of this bill is to empower communities, but it is also to remove barriers to the transfer of assets, which has been leagared crofting for a long time. There is quite a considerable barrier still in these amendments, and I just want to put that to you. I think that the obvious change to come might have been to put the burden on the owner, but as Derek Flynn rightly pointed out, crofting law is essentially dependent upon the owner being expected to do virtually nothing and the tenant being expected to do virtually everything. If you put the burden on the owner, they may not respond to it. I wonder if you have considered further simplification of that so that perhaps the requirement might be for the crofting community body to use the best of their endeavours, for example, to find out what the information is, or to make sure that it only relates to that material that is available publicly, because there are sometimes difficulties in the state ownership that the beneficial ownership of that estate might reside a very long way away and not be accessible to a community body that is trying to find out about it. Identifying the owner and the creditor is important because of the simple fact that this is a purchase of land and the community needs to purchase it from someone. The information that Mr Russell rightly points out is readily available from public sources, but if there is a situation in which no owner can be identified, then the community can obviously refer the land to what is known as a QLTR for the consideration and the community body can then enter into discussions about purchasing it from the QLTR. In relation to owners of sporting interests and tenants, the community body needs to only identify those if they are purchasing those tenancies and sporting rights separately from the land itself. It is important to remember that, given that this is a compulsory purchase of land, an owner must be identified and it is readily available information from the public sources. However, if the situation in which no owner can be identified, then the community can refer that land to the QLTR. Can I just press a little? The issue is not so much that an owner cannot be identified. The effort to identify the actual ownership of a highland estate can be pretty difficult. The chain of ownership can be very complex. I think that the insertion of some qualification into this, either on the face of the bill or by means of guidance, that indicates what you have indicated, for example, that indicates that best endeavour that is expected to apply, that indicates, for example, that publicly available information is being sought, I think would be helpful, because, on the face of it, if you are a community body and you read that you have not got to find out about ownership but also about creditors of one sort or another, that seems a pretty tall order if you are facing an ownership that might end up in an obscure island somewhere in the Caribbean or even possibly in a Swiss bank vault. Do you want to take that, Dave? There are situations in which we are trying to find a norm that can be quite a torturous process. The aspect that we need to keep in mind is that an owner still has to be found to purchase land. It is compulsory to purchase. Yes, in some cases, that is not easy, but the bottom line is that it still has to be done. In terms of strengthening the guidance, we can certainly, and in terms of sources of that information, the right to buy team is always there to help the community through the process at any point and to help. As part of the recommendations of the land reform review group, they recommended a community land agency that could assist with that sort of thing. That may be one of the remits, but that is still up for discussion and is still out for consultation in that whole aspect. That applies only to ownership. It applies to, and I quote it, in terms of standard securities over the land as well. I am reading that correctly, that you are indicating that guidance could be issued that would deal with it so that the burden of that was understood more accurately by the crofting community and that, therefore, a concept such as publicly available or best of endeavours could be considered. To be honest, I am not sure how far we can go in terms of what reasonable endeavours are in terms of finding a way we will have to do that. Best of endeavours, I think that we were warned off reasonable endeavours by Derek Clair, and by the goal to say it, I think quite firmly. Yes. Be clear for the point that we were warned off best of endeavours and suggested that reasonable endeavour, because, as Duncan Burd said, it is maybe disclosed in either register of say scenes or the land register of Scotland. Okay, but that is in order to lock down who should be within the public knowledge and to avoid the fraudsters. So reasonable would probably fit the bill. Is that going to be reflected either in the face of the bill or in the regulations? We are happy to take that away and consider that. That would be helpful, because clearly that would be an air of possible further amendment. The only other point that I was going to make, convener, is to say about the registers of Scotland. It has a commitment to get all the land on to the register within the next 10 years, and we are looking at a full modernisation of the land register, but obviously that is not happening now, but that is in the long term. We are very happy to have a look at that and come back to you. Thank you, that would be very helpful. Okay, thank you. I will look at ballot procedures now, Graham Day. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister. The proposed amendments will get us into a situation where crofting community bodies could, in certain circumstances, seek reimbursement of the costs associated with conducting the ballot. However, no such option is made available under part 2 of the 2003 act to a community body. Could you outline why we have this differential treatment? In a part 2 application with the community body register preemption to buy, they have to demonstrate community support for the group's plans by other means such as petition. However, when it comes to purchasing the land, a ballot must be held to confirm that the community wishes to go ahead with the purchase itself. For the crofting community right to buy, since it is a compulsory purchase, it goes straight into the purchasing stage of the process. Therefore, it is important that they demonstrate community support for the purchase. The requirements are the same in both parts, as far as the ballot is concerned. It is just that there is no pre-emptive element along with the associated petition to demonstrate support. The main difference is around the funding for the ballot. As part of the changes to the community right to buy, we are proposing that the running of the ballot and the cost of doing so is met by Scottish ministers. However, in the crofting community right to buy, we are proposing that the community run and fund the ballot in the first instance. However, in certain circumstances, they can apply to Scottish ministers for the costs to be refunded. The main reason for that is around one of timing. In the part 2 process, community support has already been demonstrated as part of the application process before the ballot stage is reached. That also means that the Scottish Government has already assessed the suitability of the community body's application. Now, I move into reference to the land court. Dave Thomson. Thank you, convener. Morning, minister, Dave and Stephen. That is a relatively minor point in some senses. It was raised last week principally by the law commission, and it is about the persons who have a right to refer a question to the land court. The amendment that comes forward from the Government has extended that, but what the law commission is saying is that creditors should also have the right to refer. There was a submission to us from a member of Community Lands Scotland who made the point that creditors with a standard of security and the right to sell the land are irrelevant in a part 3 situation, because land in crofting tenure is near valueless. No other member of the panel seemed to be particularly exercised by it, so it was just to ask you why creditors in section 81 are included in section 73, why they are not included in section 81, if there is any particular reason for that or is there any merit in what the law society is suggesting? That is what I will say to you. Section 81C states that any person who has an interest in the land is legally forcible, so that would include creditors. Okay, so that is the answer. They are included in that broader part of it. We move on to the outcome of an appeal to the land court. Thank you very much, convener, and the morning ministers and officials. Outcome of appeal to the land court. At the moment, the 2003 act allows the land court four weeks from hearing date to give reasons regarding evaluation appeal. The amendments here in section 92 would make that eight weeks, but with the land court also able to report why it was unable to make the eight weeks target. What is the rationale of doubling the time that the land court, and therefore doubling the time that people have to wait, doubling that time is beneficial? As surely land courts, if they are given double the time, they will take double that time? I wonder what the rationale is. One of the amendments that we have made is to allow for cross representations. At the moment, either party is entitled to submit representations to the value of which it must be taken into account. It was felt that to ensure that all relevant information is taken into account that, where one party has submitted representations, the other party should be entitled to submit cross representations. We do not wish to extend the process on duty as a result, so we have imposed a short two-week period—that is extended from the six weeks to the eight weeks—to consider the initial representations and then to submit cross representations should they wish to do so. When the land court requested that the four-week time limit be extended, it could often cause scheduling issues, particularly with complex cases. It was felt that it was unlikely that a case that has been heard over a number of weeks could be written up in four weeks, but we also realised that both community bodies and owners need an element of clarity in when they might expect a decision. So, although the time limit has been extended and the court has the ability to request that it be extended further, it must then give a definite date by which a written decision will be received. I wonder what sort of sanctions are available if they do not meet that eight-week target? How do you ensure that the land court does report? Although there are no powers to impose sanctions, should the court not adhere to the timescales in the act, it was felt that it was still important to specify those to give all parties a degree of certainty as when they can reasonably expect a decision. It is not expected that the court will miss those deadlines, except in extenuating circumstances. There are actually no sanctions if they do not meet that. By way of information, do you have any figures on how many anticipation of how many times the land court would miss that target? We do not, but I am happy to take that away and come back to the committee in writing with that information. I do not have it on with me at the moment, but I am very happy to ask officials if we can have a look into that and write to the committee with a response. Can I add to that question about whether there are enough members of the bench in the land court to be able to cope with the work in hand? The question about the time that it takes for them to hear those cases might be tied up by, as has been suggested to us, a couple of members being in South Uist dealing with a case there. Should we be recommending that, in fact, there should be more members of the land court? The changing of the timescales arrived at through discussion with the land court. They were quite happy on that extension for 48. They did not extant for a further extension to take account. To be fair, we did not ask them about whether they needed to increase the number of members on the bench for the land court. It was about their schedule and tentatives and what they would reasonably expect to be able to comply with, which is why we do not know. They have given us no indication that they are going to miss that eight weeks. Up to now, the abbi, in large as far as we are aware, and this is what we will go and check, met the four weeks, but in some cases it has been difficult. It is just to give the court themselves a bit more time to make sure, but it is still including some degree of certainty for both communities and the owners of when they can expect that decision rather than just whenever, when manana. There is no important sanctions to enforce that, but at least it puts some sort of a framework. I am sure that you are aware, minister, that Scotland is developing a very strong mediation reputation. There are many good mediation services out there now, which I think that we need to encourage. I know that the Government has been involved in that. I wonder whether the Government has the legal power to insist on mediation in relation to disputes and legislation. We have evidence from community land Scotland that a number of the agencies that support community groups would like to be able to facilitate mediation, but they do not have the legal power at the moment. It is something that could speed up the resolution of disputes. I am not sure what the position of most lawyers would be. It is maybe going to do them out of some work, but lawyers can get involved in mediation as well. I just think that mediation is something that we should be moving towards generally throughout all the legislation and everything that we do in Scotland, and we should be encouraging it at every step. I would like a wee bit of clarification as to how you see mediation working in relation to this legislation and whether you have the power to ensure that people can access mediation to resolve disputes much more quickly than they would through the land court. I recognise that the majority of crofting community purchases have taken place outwith the act using a negotiated settlement between both parties now. As we know, negotiations can often be difficult, and it is recognised that there may be a need for support for that. At the moment that the Scottish Government is forming a short-life working group as part of the work on achieving the £1 million acre target for community ownership, and that work will be informing the potential functions and role of a community land agency, which was one of the recommendations of the land reform review group. One of the functions of which could be to assist with mediation now. Obviously, mediation is voluntary, and it is thought that investigating the options through this route would allow for a much better consideration of the issues and the best solution. On the point that you raised, Mr Thomson, on the legal powers, I will be honest, I am not sure, but we can check and we can get back to the committee about that point. That is very helpful, minister. Obviously, it would be voluntary, I suppose, but if it is made clear in the legislation that mediation would be favoured and that the community bodies that are assisting the ones that support community groups would have the power to suggest and push people towards mediation rather than just leave it as a kind of ephemeral type of thing. I appreciate your response and I look forward to hearing what you come back to us with once you have checked out. We are moving out of the area of the crofting committee bodies and into the general community empowerment aspect now about abandon and neglected land, and Sarah Boyack is going to be doff. Thank you very much, convener. Thank you for sending us the draft regulations on this part of the bill, minister. It has been incredibly helpful. I am going to start off the questioning. I am sure that I will not be the last member to ask questions in this section, because in the committee we spent quite a lot of time discussing the issue before we came to our stage 1 report. That was partly the weight of the evidence that we received from some of the key stakeholders, but also in terms of the policy intent of the bill. The policy memorandum is clear that the objective that you as a Government have is to enable land that is neglected or abandoned can be a barrier to the sustainable development of the land, and that the objective of the bill is to enable communities to have the opportunity to buy that land when other routes to getting access to it's better use have failed. In this context, the fact that neglected and abandoned is mentioned on the face of the bill, but sustainable development is not. We have concerns about that, so I want to kick off the questions today about the definition of neglected and abandoned. In the response back to us, minister, you said that neglected and abandoned took their ordinary meaning, and that it is not to be defined on the face of the bill. You have a compare phrase that is basically obvious to everybody what the terms neglected and abandoned mean. The worry that I have is that it is not straightforward, whether it is an urban or rural area. Everybody says that it is obvious in an urban area, but it is not so obvious in a rural area. Having represented an urban area for quite a while, even in that context, meeting the definition of illustrating whether land has been neglected or abandoned is not straightforward. You have said that in the regulations circumstances will be set out, but for a community to establish that something is neglected, for example, what about minor works that might have taken place in the land? What about works just to make a building safe and secure but not necessarily used, or whether planning applications are submitted on a regular basis? There are questions about the issue of abandonment and neglect and how bad it has to be before ministers would take that into consideration. The fact that we do not have that defined on the bill, although the policy ambition is to achieve sustainable development does not appear on the face of the bill, is a concern. I would first of all like to open up by saying what you thought of the representations that we made in our committee report and why, to date, you have not felt able to take them on board in terms of putting the statutory definition on the face of the bill and using the word sustainable development as you have in the policy memorandum. Perhaps I can make some general points on the draft regulations. I will say it as well that, when it comes to the draft regulations, at the moment, they are illustrating the sort of thing that could be put into the draft regulations. We are trying to bring clarity to neglected and abandoned land and we have been trying to take on board the committee's concerns around that. However, if the committee has got any further suggestions or ideas about what else could be put into the draft regulations, I am very happy for the committee to be able to feed that into the Government at this stage. The introduction of part 3A, which is the right for communities to buy land that is abandoned or neglected even against the wishes of its current owner, is an important step. It allows land that is neglected or abandoned to be brought back into productive use, while ensuring that it is developed in a sustainable way for the benefit of the community. I accept that it is not as big a step as some would hope for, but it is an important one because it will allow communities with clear plans for neglected or abandoned land to make a case for community ownership. There is an example of Cynigar loop, which is not exactly the same thing, but it gives a sort of example of the opportunity of the change that can be made to the land. This is where the Forestry Commission has brought into use a derelict site at the heart of the Clyde gateway area, creating an inspiring and accessible riverside woodland park. It is located in the boundary between Sidde Lanarkshire Council and Glasgow City Council, but it is not exactly the same thing that is abandoned or neglected, but it is an example of the opportunity that communities could make to change the land for the better with the power in relation to abandoned and neglected land. Not only is this new proposal a demonstration of the Government's ambition to further community empowerment, but it is also another step along Scotland's land reform agenda. We have listened carefully to the committee's concerns and those that have been raised by the stakeholders. We have taken legal advice on whether the amendments could be made to the face of the bill to address the concerns raised by the committee in their stage 1 report. There are several aspects that we must take into account when deciding what goes on the face of the bill. We need to ensure that the amendments to the bill are within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. That includes ensuring that the amendments comply with the ECHR, which provides a right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. We also need to make sure that the right to buy will be compatible and that it is concordance with the law and pursuing a legitimate aim in a way that is proportionate. I want to be as helpful as I possibly can to the committee in understanding the legal context, but we will consider whether amendments can be made to the definition of eligible land to include land that is not neglected or abandoned that is still causing problems. I was thinking specifically about the issue that has been raised by quite a few stakeholders about the term sustainable development. I note your comments about legal force and legal understanding, but sustainable development is something that has been used at regularly appears in Scottish Government bills. If we have the terms neglected and abandoned and the objective is to ensure sustainable development is seen in the use of the land, what could be the legal objection to that? It is a term that is understood and is now being used in the courts. I welcome the fact that that is a step on the way to ensuring sustainable development use of the land. I support the Scottish Government's intentions that the worry is that, without clear definition and without the term sustainable development being put on the bill, that might cut across the ambitions that you have in the policy memorandum to make the difference in many of our communities. A lot of that depends on how exactly what is changed in terms of the drafting at present. The proposals at the moment relate to neglected and abandoned land. If we were, based on the committee's report, to remove neglected and abandoned land from the face of the bill, that would be a complete change of scope of the proposal. It would move it beyond neglected and abandoned land to all land, which is a completely different proposal in its own right. Whenever you make such a fundamental shift, you have to sit down and think very carefully about all the checks and balances that make legislation compliant. That is a different and new proposal. It does have a focus on sustainable development in the context of what the community's proposals are to do with the land. When you say that it is bringing sustainable development on to the face of the bill, if it is about what the community wants to do as opposed to the condition of the land, that is a fundamental shift in the scope of the proposal, which changes its meaning. As a reassurance, if you were to be able to define neglected and abandoned on the face of the bill, would that not go some way to reassuring the communities who are worried that the test of neglected and abandoned land might cut across land that you, as a Government, would hope would be given that sustainable development use? We have thought very hard about the merits of defining neglected and abandoned on the face of legislation. Any attempt to define it would invariably narrow the definition. Broadly speaking, the question that the committee is interested in is how broad can the land that is eligible be made, and what the minister was saying earlier is that we are thinking about, is there any scope to go beyond abandoned and neglected to other land for which there are problems, so we need to look at whether we can come forward with amendments of a nature that would take it further than it is at present, but at the same time not extend it to all and any land in Scotland. Again, while not defining on the face of the bill, the idea that we bring forward regulations that set out what issues ministers have to have consideration to helps to define what we mean by neglected and abandoned land. Obviously, that has greater flexibility in a way, because, if it is found not to be working quite as well as Parliament wants, it can also be amended in time as well. It is more flexible, whereas if we define it on the face of the bill, it makes it very hard to make changes to it in time. Russell, then Dave Thompson, okay? This is a very important discussion that we are having, and I think that we are all trying to get the right solution out of it. I think that it might be helpful to step back from moment and say, what is that right solution? The right solution is to enable communities to possess, to buy land at which they wish to use for purposes of sustainable development. Now, if we get this wrong one way or the other, then that is not going to happen, and it is not going to happen because it will be frustrated by lawyers who want it not to happen and owners who do not want to sell. We need to get a clarity in this that means that, if the bill is challenged, judicial review does happen, and reference under EUCHR could happen. If we do not get it right, then that will be the clause that stops communities actually participating, because they will be frustrated by it. The question is, is it better to define it on the face of the bill and have it challenged, but at least be absolutely clear what it means, or to leave it in what you have mystically called given the words ordinary meaning, although it is capable of many ordinary meanings, and another legal meaning? That is really quite worrying, because it is a specific legal meaning to abandon neglected land that you are not applying here. In those circumstances, if you leave it in that way, will the challenges essentially be successful because of the vagueness within the legislation? I think that the committee, in the greater part—it is not unanimous, but the committee in the greater part believed that it was very important that we tied that definition down as clearly as possible so that communities could use the legislation effectively. I think that that is what we are still struggling to try and do. I think that there is also an issue about whether fundamental and radical steps—I am very pleased to see them, but fundamental and radical steps about changing land ownership should really be defined in the secondary legislation, or whether they should be defined quite clearly as a legislative intention of the Parliament within primary legislation. I do not think that we are there yet. I think that the regulations are helpful, but I do think that it is important that we get a clearer definition on the face of the bill. What Sarah has been trying to do, and I think quite correctly, is to point to sustainable development as one possible area in which we could get a clearer definition. However, I think that there will be amendment brought forward on this, and I would urge the Government to think about that in it, because I think that we are all trying to help each other to get that absolute clarity so that the intention for a radical step forward will be fulfilled in practice, because we know from the land reform legislation that there are in actual fact many of the difficulties that have existed, including some that I have been dealing with myself in recent weeks, are because the legislation is not as clear as it should be, and that there are difficulties in operating that legislation. We have learned from that. The question is, can we keep moving in this legal debate? My own contribution to it, convener, if I might just make that, is that I do think that we need the clear definition, I do think that we need the term sustainable development, and I think that some of the work that is being done by Community Land Scotland to suggest a way to frame it should be seriously considered by the Government's lawyers going forward. I mean, there will, I think, be an amendment at stage 2. That amendment would be seriously considered by the Government's lawyers, we might get ourselves to stage where we could all eventually agree. Thank you. I'm just going to add very quickly on to that, just obviously that we appreciate the committee's support and the committee's work around this area, and obviously we are actively considering what's possible from the Government's side as well, because obviously within the land reform bill consultation itself, it does also ask the question, do you agree that there should be powers given to Scottish ministers or another public body to direct landowners to take action to overcome barriers to sustainable development in an area? Obviously, the responses to the consultation are currently being analysed, but there is work that we are currently doing right now in terms of considering what further amendments could be brought forward. So, when the amendments do come forward, and it's very helpful, I'm grateful to you, Minister, for that, you are essentially saying that the debate can continue. Obviously, you will look at possible amendments and keep thinking about how we can make this effective so that it doesn't stand as a difficulty but actually fulfills what your policy intention is, which is endorsed by the majority of this committee, very warmly endorsed by the majority of this committee. Thanks, convener. Looking at this, it strikes me that the broader the definition, as is outlined by Stephen Pathranna, the more room there is for challenge, which is counter to what you were actually saying. I think that it's interesting if you look at the people who are happy with the current proposal, and they are the ones who don't want change in relation to communities' rights to buy the land. I think that that's very, very significant. Look at the folk who are supporting this change, and look at the folk who are quite content with the current situation. That's really a comment to kick off with, but there was one thing that you said, Minister, which I'd like to get a wee bit of clarity on. It was to do with the legal advice, where you mentioned the competence of the Parliament and the ECHR. If it was in the face of the bill, there would be greater difficulties and problems for us. What I don't understand, and I'm not a lawyer, so maybe Stephen can help me with this, if that is going to create problems if it is in the face of the bill, what leads you to think that those problems wouldn't exist if it appears later in regulations? What's the difference in those two things? What makes you confident that you can do something in the regulations that you feel you can't do in the face of the bill? First of all, I'm not a lawyer either, so let's get that clear. I'll do my best to try and answer, because I think that there is some confusion here still about the different things that we're talking about around this proposal. There's the issue of what type of land are we talking about, which is what, and the words, neglecting a banter relate to the land. Then there's the issue about does the community have a proposal and a case to take ownership of that land? Those are different things. If we're talking about what type of land, the question of the definition is what definition describes a land we mean now, my initial understanding of what the committee was suggesting, which was possibly removing the words abandoned and neglected, would then mean all land. All land is very different to a specific class of land. Even when we talk about Crofton communities, it's a specific type of land, a specific type of land with specific sets of rights that already reside over it, so it's different to other land. We need to be clear about what land we're talking about and what we're trying to do with neglecting abandoned is describe the land. While accept that yes, we are talking about the normal definition of neglecting abandoned, which ultimately there will be, with all legislation that's groundbreaking, cases that define it, but we anticipate that that definition will probably be broader than any definition that we would articulate, because invariably when you start trying to articulate things, you end up narrowing them down. That's a risk. We could define it down, but it will be narrower than wider. Now, what would be a substantive change in direction of the proposal would be relating the issue of sustainable development of communities as the key factor that drove the which land was eligible, if you see what I mean. That's actually a huge change, and it's not essentially within the context of the current proposal, where all the checks and balances have been carefully thought through in relation to neglecting abandoned. That would all have to be thought through again. You could argue that within the context of the consultation on land reform, where we're talking about consulting on a proposal for the power to minister to intervene, where the actions of landowner detrimental to the sustainable development communities were thinking about to go to the place that committee is really interested in in that context, which of course requires a lot of careful thought about how you design a mechanism that's compliant and takes regard of landowners and communities interests. From a landowner's point of view, it has to be adequately foreseeable. They have to understand what they have to do that would bring their land back into good use, make it sustainable. If we make a shift like that, that's just a huge change at this stage in the process. While we can go away and look at scope to bring greater clarity and neglect in abandoned and scope to extend it to other land for which there are problems, extending it to all land is a bigger step. Just one little follow-up to that, convener. That's very helpful and useful. Apologies for calling you a lawyer. The committee, as we said, had proposed taking it out altogether, but I can see that there might be arguments for leaving it in. However, let's take that as the case. It keeps it tight and it doesn't extend it to all land, so I fully understand that point. However, doesn't it logically follow that, if you have the neglected and abandoned land there on the face of the bill, that to strengthen your hand even more, the definition on the face of the bill would actually do that, especially if the definition made it clear that the whole purpose of this was to do with sustainability and sustainable land. Rather than having neglected and abandoned on the face of the bill, which clarifies that it's a tight definition and a sense with the regulations following, it would strengthen the bill and make it very clear to everybody if we also had the sustainable development aspects on the face of the bill. You're really defining it and you're really being much more precise. Am I not right in that? I think it's possibly, that would possibly be, well, certainly putting a clear definition on the face of the bill would be more precise, but it would invariably probably be narrower, but it would have to relate to the land, so sustainability of the land and the condition of the land, as opposed to the sustainable aspirations of the community, which are a different thing. Again, there's a big difference in that, and I still think there's scope in terms of regulations, which allow greater flexibility to get this right over time in a way that going for a definition on the face of the bill would obviously might pin it down, but offer less flexibility. I take that point, but the whole purpose of this is to ensure that land is used to its best advantage, that sustainable development of land is actually taken forward. There isn't land lying there doing nothing, not benefiting anyone other than someone who has bought it as an investment. Therefore, yes, it's got to relate to the sustainable development of the land, that's fine, but that's going to be in the interests of the community. If there's a bit of land lying doing nothing, and the community would like more housing or business parks or hydro schemes or anything like that, not lands lying there just because somebody's bought it as an investment to hedge against inflation or whatever, then the community would be able to come in and argue that this land is not being used sustainably. They have a way of making sure that it would and that it would come out with their business plan and all the detail along the lines of the park judgment, for instance. It's got to be to do with the sustainable development of the land, but that's what we're after. I'm quite comfortable with that being on the face of the ball and that being made clear on the face of the ball, because that's what we're looking to do. In the Highlands, there's lots of land that is sterilised and not being used to its best effect, and we need to change that. Can I come back on one small point? Briefly, yes, because it's a debate and now Ferguson wants to come in, and Mike wants to come in, and so do I. One of the things in these provisions is that they don't apply to the crofting communities or to the crofting districts, because essentially the crofting community right to buy is a broader right to buy and would apply in those areas. So all those situations that you're talking about in the Highlands that you point to, the crofting community right to buy is the vehicle in that place. But no dollar of the Highlands is under crofting, didn't you? Only some districts, yes, indeed. Right, Harlech Ferguson, Mike Russell. Thank you very much, convener. I just wanted to thank Mr Patharana for confirming, I think, that the committee's recommendations in this area would effectively have brought in an absolute right to buy for all land, which is what's creating the difficulty. Well, I think he said it would open up, you said it would open up the possibility of this right to buy covering all land. Is that right? If the word's neglected in a band, if we don't define land as a definition around land, then, thankfully, we're talking about all land. If you did, as the committee recommended, that would be the case, I think, is what you were. If we remove the definition of a neglect to the band. I just wanted to thank you for clarity, because that's why I dissented from this section of the report. My question is to the minister. I wonder if you could confirm that it remains the Government's intention that this right, this power, should only be used as in a situation of last resort when all other processes have failed. Does that remain your intention? Yes, it is. Yes, it is. It does. Thank you. That's all I need to know. Thank you. I feel I should have come in for Alec, because what I wanted to say to the convener is that I don't think the committee's intention was that it should apply the recommendation of removing the words, should open up all land to purchase. I can see that the logical inference of the decision might be that, but that wasn't the committee's intention. I think I'm right in saying that in terms of recommendation from the discussion that took place. The committee's intention was to make sure that the opportunity to purchase land that is inverted commas, abandoned and neglected, was fulfilled. But getting the definition of that has proved to be very difficult. I don't think there's any intention to open it up for all land. Some might argue that that's the right thing to do. That's another debate, but that's not the intention. The intention is to fulfil the policy intention that the Government has, and the debate is about whether or not a definition of those words is required to do so, and that's what we should focus on. There wasn't intention to go wider. I think if that became the debate, as you have just seen, that would not necessarily help the Government to get its intention. Is it the road to go down in terms of criticising what the committee did? I want to focus specifically on the fact that we're talking about eligible land for a start. It's been mentioned before that eligible land excludes things such as agricultural land that's being kept in good condition, removes low-intensity use land that's being agreed, etc. So anything to do with abandon and neglected is about a limited amount of land. It's not about all land. Would you just confirm that, please? That's set out in the draft regulations, where we set out the matters to which we must have regard when deciding whether land is eligible. Obviously, they fall into the three broad categories, which are the physical condition and its effect on the surrounding area, public safety and the environment, the use of the land or lack of use, as the case might be, including whether the land is a nature reserve held for conservation purposes or used for public recreation. Thirdly, the third category is around any designation or classification of the land, such as land that has been classed as contaminated land or buildings that are listed buildings or scheduled monuments. Thank you for that confirmation. It's a good explanation of areas in which there should be some discretion so that assessment can be made. You should be aware that whatever arrangements are finally agreed by the Parliament, that those who have a land-owning interest, as has been mentioned by you on a couple of occasions, will cite the European Convention on Human Rights. In an article in this month's Scottish Field, a 26-page assessment of making sense of land reform, the editor, Richard Bath, states that, but it is almost inconceivable that any reform will not be challenged legally. So we're in a world where whatever move is made, we can expect that there will be some means found to challenge whatever we decide in court. That's the reality. If that's so, we're moving into an area where people are taking very entrenched positions because they think that this is a situation that they're not prepared to accept. Before ECHR crofting right to buy was accepted, but in terms of community right to buy it looks to me as though there's going to be a challenge, whatever. Now, I was going to ask you at the end when you're going to respond to our stage one report because we need to see that. In that report, the issue about human rights and equalities was dealt with in the following fashion. The issue of ECHR was set against the UN covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, article 11. Malcolm Coom suggested that when you put the two together that you are talking about matters that lead you not to think just about property but about sustainable use of land. If you are going to fulfil such matters as food, housing, sanitation, et cetera, you have to see that in terms of it being sustainably usable and not being neglected and abandoned or whatever. They are trying to suggest to you that it would be a good idea to find a way in which you test the ECHR, in my view, against the UN covenant because if a court was faced with the situation where someone challenged the decision of ours on the basis that the ECHR was breached, are you prepared to push something that the UK has signed up to since the 1970s in terms of this covenant as something that perhaps overrides ECHR? Although the Scotland act says that we are responsible for ECHR, because there are going to be challenges in court, almost certainly. Is not it time that we were going back with something that overrides ECHR in this case? In the first instance, of course, we can come back to the committee with a further response to that. However, in all instances, we have to find a way of articulating clearly the public interest and balancing that public interest against the rights of individuals and communities. Essentially, with any process such as the community right to buy, the crofting community right to buy and the proposal on neglected land, that is what it is trying to do. I would probably want the committee to reflect on the fact that those things are probably all possible, but it is about making sure that the tests that are set out and the checks and balances in a proposal achieve that outcome in a fair and balanced way. In the context of what we have put forward so far around neglected land, we think that we have struck that balance in the right way, subject to some further thinking around the definition of neglected and abandoned land. Now, if we were to broaden things out to other areas where we want to take action, we need to think through that in a broader context. These are all things that we are thinking about in the context of the land reform consultation and where else the Government might choose to go. I just want to give the committee the reassurance that we are considering all of this right now. We are looking at how we can broaden the definition. The Government has responded to the committee's stage 1 report that has been sent this morning, so the committee should have that. Well, thank you for that. I am just suggesting that you take very seriously the context in which we are working. For us to be able to achieve something that is lasting, we are going to have to take into account the moving platform on which we work. I think that the land reform document talked about land reform for Scotland for the common good, or a phrase like that. That suggests that the common good is actually overriding that of individual current landholders. It seems to me that if that balance is going to be reflected in the amendments that are brought forward for neglected and abandoned things, you should take that on board. I am more happy to do so. Good. Any further points? I hope not. Certainly we have gone round this house. I hope that this has been a constructive way to deal with this approach. I thank you very much for the evidence, and I hope that the Government will be able to meet our wishes. Indeed, when we read your report back to us, some of this will become clearer. Thank you very much, minister, and your colleagues for giving us evidence just now. We will take a short five-minute suspension, because we have a big group coming in, and we need a wee break as well. I welcome everybody to the committee for agenda item 2 on the Scottish Government's Wild Fisheries review. That will allow us to take evidence from stakeholders this morning. I should point out that, on the original agenda, it was stated that Dr David Summers, fisheries director of the Tay District Salmon Fisheries Board, was going to join us, but unfortunately has been unable to do so. Just so that you understand how we work, we will, in a moment, go round the table and say who we are. The sound is controlled centrally, and when you indicate you wish to speak and I say that you can, then you will be able to make your contribution. It does not mean that everybody has to answer every question, given that we all probably can hear the force of the arguments from colleagues as we move forward. Going round the room so that I can see all the names, if you just introduce yourself, the gentlemen here first of all. Good morning everybody. I am Dr Andy Walker, retired fisheries biologist from the Government. For my evil sins, I have been made the Vice-Chairman of one of the committees of SANA, the Scottish Anglers National Association. SANA is the recognised governing body for Anglain. Sarah Boyack, Labour MSP, for Lothian. Craig MacIntyre, representing Argyll Fisheries Trust. Dave Thompson, MSP, for Skylachabar and Benach. Jamie Ribbon, from the Galway Fisheries Trust. Chris Pincook, representing the Northern District Salmon Fishery Board. Ron Woods, representing the Scottish Federation for coarse angling. Jamie McGregor, MSP, for Highlands and Islands. If I may declare an interest, I am also chairman of the Lockhall Improvement Association, which runs the protection order on Lockhall and Abbey. I am also a member of the Ord District River Improvement Association. I am sorry to interrupt you there, but Jamie is just joining us as a member of Parliament, not as a member of the committee. Mike Russell, MSP, for Argyllum Drute and therefore Jamie's MSP, constituency MSP. Alex Ferguson, MSP, for Galway and West Dumfries. Hugh Campbell-Adamson, chairman of the Salmon Tractatisation Scotland, as a charity campaigning for the conservation of salmon sea trout and trout. Jim Hulme, Liberal Democrat MSP, for South Scotland. Mick Young, from the River to Commission. Angus MacDonald, MSP, for Falkirk East. Jamie McGregor, MSP, representing the Salmon Nature Association of Scotland. Good morning. I am Graymond Day, MSP, for Angus South. As a convener, I am Rob Gibson, MSP, for Caithness, Sutherland and Ross. We are going to kick off thinking about the balance between national leadership and local delivery in terms of the way that the fisheries review has proposed. What does the panel think about the proposal to establish a national unit with responsibility for fisheries management? Who should head this up? Should the unit be part of government or separate for government? For example, a non-departmental body. That is my first question. If anyone would like to indicate an intention to answer, please do. I think that it should be run by somebody of a very neutral organisation, probably a Government, and possibly made up of a committee by MSPs, a freshwater fisheries team, probably stakeholders from the Anglinous Associations, and these two different bodies there, also the Salmon Nature Association. Maybe you have some part of the consultation team, and obviously you would have to take in people like your environmental agencies as well. We are talking about a national unit and trying to make it slim. That sounds quite big. Does anyone want to come back on that just now? James Ribbon. I think that the key thing is that it is still to be defined. We are still unsure about exactly what the central unit would be. That is the key thing. One of the things that has been suggested about exactly where it is and setting government. I doubt that it is important at this stage to decide where that is. It is more of a role. What we would be expecting is that it is looking at the national strategy, obviously. It is looking through central resourcing. That is one of the key elements that we would have to look through. The work plans, there is a strong element, and that is something that the trusts have been involved in already, very much through work plans. We would hope to have guidance and support going down to the FMOs at that level from this central unit. Graham Day is just going to put in a little supplementary that might be helpful at the moment. Good morning, convener, and good morning to the panel. Can I just pose a question? How do the panel view the proposed changes to the structures set against the kind of conflicts that we have seen arise on some of our rivers? Do you think that the potential changes could reduce the kind of conflicts that we have seen, or is there a potential to make them more prevalent? With this national body in particular. Anybody want to take that up? Hugh Campbell-Amlidd, Adamson. I think that perhaps Graham Day is referring to local conflicts in your area. I do not know whether he is. No, sorry, I am implying. I think it is important that the problems we have had in the past and certainly has been problems in the past between the different exploiters of our fishing resource, of our salmon resource, that has been a problem without doubt, and I think the idea of having a centralized system may well get around that to degree. My only concerns are in the end you must not lose the local volunteers we have in the area as we talked about before. I will come on to that as a second question just now, because it is two-sided, the national. Is there anyone else who has any comments about the national unit, or are we generally agreed to leave it at that just now? Well, if that is the case, we are talking about establishing local fishery management organisations. So, does the review establish the right balance between the national accountability and the strategy and local empowerment and delivery? How does the powers of the FMOs compare to the powers that district salmon fishery boards currently hold? Ron, do you want to say something? Well, in the sense that course angling is not under the responsibilities that are currently held by salmon fishery boards, the all-species concept brings course angling into that field. We have recognised for some years that all-species management is the way forward and very much something that we would support. However, we have specific concerns that it must not simply be the management of all species but management for the benefit of all species. We are concerned that, while we recognise that, for various financial and other reasons, salmon must have a very high influence on the management, that the priority should not act to the detriment of course fish. For that reason, one of our particular concerns is that the constitutional arrangements under which fishery management organisations are set up make it very clear that there is a responsibility for the wellbeing of all species rather than simply control of them. Secondly, in the interplay between the central unit and the fisheries management organisations, there are checks and balances that ensure that any kind of rogue activities can be prevented. I think that that is much less likely than it was 25, 30 years ago or longer. We have seen a much reduced, thanks to the influence of the trusts, we have seen a much reduced emphasis on course fish being regarded as vermin and cold and so on, but there are still instances of it going on and we need our big concern is to nail that down. The strategy is about local empowerment and delivery and therefore, presumably, that would be something that is welcomed by Craig Macintyre. Absolutely. Having a local FMO fishery management organisation is essential to keeping local river owners and local angling clubs involved in fisheries management. Certainly, as a relatively small fisheries trust, that is where we have had our largest successes in working with local communities, not even just fisheries interests but other interests as well. That is something that we would definitely favour. I was thinking that I was in agreement with everything that I am hearing, so I certainly agree with it all. Any other comments just now on that? Yes, Jamie McGregor. A small comment is that, in terms of protection orders, of course, protection orders— Will we come into protection orders? I know, but I am just saying from the local management point of view, only cover non-migratory species and not migratory species. There has always been a slight difficulty when it comes to managing, because you are looking at one thing and not the whole picture. Good. Thank you for that. Move on to resourcing wild fisheries management. Jim Hume is going to kick off. Mike Russell is going to follow. Thank you very much, convener. There are two or three lines of questioning on this. We have got some good input from the Galloway Fisheries Trust in the document that came to us just a day or two ago. Obviously, the view proposal to replace the current system of living contributions from owners of salmon fishing with a national living, we heard from Andrew Thin that, if thought by ministers or the central body that money from one area could be spent better in another area, that would happen. I was just wondering what the panel's view is on the change in the living system and the thought that funds could go from one area, which is maybe doing better than other areas, and the funds there for going to different parts of the country. Yes, Jamie Ribbons. Thank you. As mentioned, we did put in a submission. The model that we worked with in Galloway Fisheries Trust has been to multiply up the locally collected levy. That is a similar model along a lot of the west coast. We would very much support the central collection of the levy that can then be redistributed because the present system, if you do not have this multiply effect, focuses more money to where the fisheries are the most healthiest in a way or ways. You will get the best bank for buck as such back if you have the ability to move it around. Alex Ferguson. I will give a quick follow-up on that, if I may, because I know that your financial structure relies a great deal on local fundraising as well as your own efforts in terms of attracting grants. Do you feel that there is a danger, or does anybody else feel that there is a danger, of a national levy going to a central distribution point, if I could put it like that, could have an impact on the local fundraising capabilities that I suspect most trusts rely on to one degree or another? Not necessarily. The main thing is about the FMOs. If you can have an FMO that is set up and still has local accountability and local link, that is a key thing to get local support. I think that if the payments made from the fisheries into a central organisation, which is then bid for to see how Scotland can benefit the most from that money collected, I do not see that having losing local support. I think that more if the FMOs are not fit for purpose or not able to be engaged at the local level, that would be the biggest concern. I am reflecting on that, because it is a levy on rod and net that is being talked about. Would it not be appropriate that, for example, if the netting was taken place in a mixed stock fishery, the compensatory element of the money going elsewhere should be reflected in that and an impact on the rivers, or be directed to the rivers that are being impacted upon by the fishing in a mixed stock, rather than transfer, say, from the east of Scotland to the west of Scotland? Some people haven't said anything yet. I would support that. More is the principle that has been talked about, is disability, which would be quite different to how it is at the moment. It is its ability to look at where it impacts. It is not automatically east and west. It is looking at where the maximum benefit is. You may say that some of the areas on the west coast are so hard hit that the level of money that might be required to trigger it would not suggest that would be the best thing. What we are more looking at is the principle that the money can be transferred around to where it would have its greatest benefit. James McKay and then Nick Allen. Regarding mixed stock fisheries and the levy, I can't actually see where or how you could diversify the figure and how you could make the split. I think that we are in a new organisation. I think that the netting and the anglin fraternity would have to go into it equally. I think that the mixed stock fishing is another issue that we talked about at another stage. It is quite a complex issue. I think that the financing of it doesn't reflect on the reverse that was supposedly affecting the impact of the damage done to them by mixed stock fisheries. My fishery is a brandynau on the mixed stock fishery as well. As another subject, it probably will be discussed here, so I will not go on about that. I think that there is a potential problem with the reallocation of funds. The funding situation of wild fishery fisheries management in Scotland is pretty diverse and quite different. In different parts of the country, in different rivers, between rivers, some are relatively well funded, some are very badly funded, some have almost no money at all. On the face of it, there might be a case for collecting it centrally and redistributing it, but if you did that, you then have to decide what you did not want to have done on those rivers that were already being adequately or more or less adequately funded. I don't think that it gets away from the fact that there is not enough money generally to sort the whole problem out. There is a problem. The real root of the problem is that there is not enough money being spent on wild fisheries management. I think that we will explore that a bit further. I will try to remind Mike Russell that part of the Galloway Fisheries Trust affects others because they are a trust, they are a charity and therefore they are able to access funds from places that charities can access funds. I wonder if that would affect others if the FMOs are not charities, so it looks like there should be charities. Just back to the levying part, just to be clear, do any of the guests here today think that there could be challenges from some of the fishery owners regarding their levies being redirected? Yes. Any comments about that, especially people who have not spoken already? Hugh Campbell-Adamson. It is a good point that people will be uncomfortable thinking that what their tradition in the past has paid the levies have gone from an individual river. Your point, Mr Hume, is very good, but it does not alter the fact that the present system does, if you have a successful river, which has plenty of salmon in it, it can raise more money. The reverse of that, of course, if you were a river, which is struggling for other reasons, whether it is aquaculture or just basically change in climate, will have less money coming in. The idea of some sort of fertilisation by the richer for the poorer makes sense. I do not know if you would feel it a diversion, but in relation to the recommendation, I would like to comment on the issues surrounding the extension of levy mechanisms to other species. Would you rather wait until that comes up in a different context? I will bear it in mind and you will get to raise it. Sticking with the levy situation just now, Mike Russell. The principle in terms of investment that we just heard referred to the principle proposal within the report is the possibility of the Government, at some stage, introducing a rod licence and those moneys going to investment because, as Andrew Thrin has rightly pointed out, the public purse is unlikely to meet those costs certainly in the foreseeable future. But Andrew has indicated in evidence last week that that would have to be tied to an expansion of fishing through what he called an angling for all scheme. He pointed out that in his view, in the view of his committee, Scotland is underfished and that, of course, the preponderance of those who take part are male and of a certain age, a bit like politics. In those circumstances, I want to know people's views on the rod licence, the angling for all scheme and how it might operate, because I think that all of us have constituents have expressed some considerable concern about rod licences. Do you want to come back to us now, Ron? I can, if you wish. That is certainly an issue that is of considerable interest and importance to us. I would start from the premise that rod licence is not only desirable, but it is the only effective way of raising a significant amount of money for fresh fisheries management for other species. There are all sorts of reasons why the current mechanism, levy mechanism for salmon fisheries, may or may not work, but it is feasible. A levy mechanism for freshwater fisheries is unlikely to yield any significant amount of money and would create a vast amount of bureaucracy. As well, we need to look at the example of other countries. With the exception of Ireland, virtually every civilised country in the Northern Hemisphere has some sort of national licence, rod licence, state licence—call it what you will. It appears to be that they confer different benefits and they charge different rates, but it appears to be philosophically acceptable to anglers in most of those places. It seems to me that we would not need necessarily to follow precisely the English model to have a rod licence either. The differentiation of rates for migratory fishing in other species may or may not be necessary, but I do not think that it is an essential component of the concept. Tying it completely to an angling for all programme gives us concern at this stage. I am not saying in the longer term that that might not be where the lion's share of the money raised would go, but in our view there are some very fundamental issues that need to be addressed in relation to protection of coarse fish stocks and money raised from rod licences or whatever other source of funding is used. First, we need to tackle that. We need much more robust bailiffing arrangements, which need to be underpinned by changes to statute, but we are not outcome to that. We need a lot more scientific information before we have any idea what is a sustainable level of exploitation. Sustainability for coarse fish is different in as far as, by and large, it should be a catch and release activity. Sadly, we have had a sizeable increase in pot hunting in recent years, and we simply do not know what the stocks are like or how robust they are in the great majority of waters. There are one or two places—Lochaw is a notable example—where there has been good scientific work, which gives you a reasonable indication of stock levels and dynamics, but that is by far the exception rather than the rule. Until we know what is sustainable and what levels of stock we have, we have some reservations about saying that Scotland's waters are underfished for coarse fish. Nothing more we would like than to see more development of the sport bringing in young people and bringing in more revenue from tourists. Frankly, until we know that the resource is capable of sustaining that, I would not want our rod licences, which, as I say, we think is a good thing, to be spent on doing that. Just to answer your question, a couple more people. Chris Bain-Cook is a clerk of a salmon fishery board. What is your attitude towards rod licences, levees and so on? I read the transcripts of last week's meeting with some interest. The notion that a rod licences could be used for a very discreet purpose, one that was able to encourage perhaps the development of fisheries. We are acknowledging that there are perhaps some limitations in our knowledge of the fisheries that we have and their capacity for additional use. Nevertheless, I think that that looked at from a salmon angler's point of view. I think that if you are raising a rod licence for a very particular purpose, which is generally positive for ultimately for the benefit of an angler who enjoys his sport serious about his sport and will want to see it encouraged and developed perhaps for the next generation, as it alluded to with the increasing age in anglers, then I do not see anything other than the potential for it to be positive. If it was to be used purely as an additional funding resource without purpose, I think that that would be more difficult to sell, if that is the right word. We are not talking about tax, we are talking about something for reinvestment, obviously. There is no doubt about it that a rod licence is highly contentious and people are very divided on their views on it. On the tweet, we certainly do not have a need for one and would not welcome one. My angling clubs on the tweet tell me that they would be very opposed to it because they think that it would stop people going fishing. It would not encourage them, it would be something that would discourage them from going. We are fortunate, perhaps, in that we have a large enough run of salmon that we can collect our funds without having to resort to something like that. I think that that is the worry of the angling clubs. There are a lot of retired people who would find it perhaps too much to buy both a rod licence and their existing club permit, and it would discourage young people from doing it if they thought they had to pay. At the moment, it is an extremely cheap occupation. It is £20 or £30 for a season ticket to fish on the tweet. You could argue that there is a potential for increasing that, but at the same token, I think that a lot of people think that it would put people off. For salmon fishing, that has not really been discussed, but you could argue that salmon fishing is relatively more expensive, so it would perhaps be a small increment on what people are already paying. Whether the collection of it would be efficient in terms of the amount of money that you could raise, I do not know that that would have to be looked at. Therefore, there is a mixed response. In terms of investment, if angling for all is not the priority, what are the priorities for investment? Nick has referred twice to the need for investment. What are the priorities for investment? Hypothetically, how could they and will they be met if there is no rod licence? The angling for all is a perfectly laudable process, and I am not in any way saying that we do not need it. It is true, certainly for other freshwater fishes, that there is a certain age profile and that we need to get more young people interested in fishing. I do not think that anyone disputes that. There are a number of initiatives going on throughout the whole country. One thing that we could do is perhaps to draw those together and let them feed on each other, especially encourage young people to start fishing, because they are what create the interest in fishing and the interest in fisheries management. We have got a paucity of young people coming forward. There is no question about that. We are all aware of that, so we definitely need to promote that. How it is funded, of course, is another matter, but its requirement is quite definitely there. In our guide, when we talk to the angling clubs, there is a definite problem with the lack of young people coming through, and that is recognised. With the fisheries trust, we have been tinkering with introducing angling fishing into schools. We have done that in Glendor Ruhle School, Mr Russell's local school, and it has been highly successful where we have been able to find funding for it. It is not very expensive. If we were able to fund a national programme, and the kids love it, the kids love going fishing and getting out of the classroom, so if we were able to do something and if it is the only way to fund it was through a rod licence, then I would be all in favour of it. I think that it would be a fantastic thing. I will have to add to this whole male panel. We did not just say about participation by young people but by women. I wonder if there is some psychological thing about the way in which women view angling that it is never going to attract them in the way that it attracts men. Can I just briefly, for the record, say that if my colleague Claudia Beamish were here, she would disagree with you. She is actually quite keen on angling. I wonder if the point about school is quite an important thing about getting access to it at an early age without thinking about whether it is for men or women. Maybe that is partly about education, partly about attitudes. One of the things that I think was slightly unfortunate, I do not think that Andrew Thin quite picked up on in some of the meetings that we had with him, is that there is already some very good work being done. It is being done under the auspices of a joint angling development board for Scotland, which involves ourselves, SANA and the Scottish Federation for Sea Angling. We have developed, and it is not my side of the business, so forgive me if I get this wrong, but certainly up to level 3 qualifications that can be taken in schools. We are working with schools to set up coaching sessions. We have a proper licensed coaching scheme, because obviously there are all sorts of child protection and other issues that can arise with a piecemeal approach. We have very welcome support, both from Sport Scotland and from the Scottish Government through Marine Scotland. That is not starting from a blank canvas. There is already some co-ordinated activity. As a matter of interest, one of the leading lights in the coaching programmes going out to do outreach for schools, young people and vulnerable adults is a lady called Heather Lauriston, who fishes internationally, both in coarse angling and sea angling for Scotland, and is very much a role model and is working hard to try and bring girls into the sport as well. Okay, fine. Thank you very much for that. So we need to have something to catch for the subject of sustainable harvesting. Oh, Alex Ferguson. I would like to ask for supplementary questions on the rod licensing. Certainly. Thank you. I am sorry, convener. I thought that I had caught your eye. It was Mr Woods who mentioned tourists, people who come to Scotland to fish. I just wanted to touch on the possible impact of rod licensing on that sector, because I am amazed by the number of people from my constituency who have in the Deep South West of Scotland that have contacted me on that. Whatever way you look at the impact of the various recommendations of that, if they are all put into place, I am going to have an add-on cost for fishing, for people who want to fish. I am quite sure that the big, well-known rivers, the Tweeds and the Tays, will still continue to attract people in the same numbers as they do, but what has been put to me is that on some of the smaller rivers that exist in my constituency in the South West, those measures could have a very serious impact on people who come to fish, stay in the local bed and breakfast, and all the things that help the rural economy. That is a genuine concern. I am totally neutral on that particular issue, but I just wonder if anybody has any thoughts on it, whether they could expand on that. It would certainly be helpful if we had an international perspective on that as well, because our tourists put off from going to other places. That strikes me as well, and there would be some sort of balance in the debate. This is not an international answer to the South West Scotland. That has been raised with us a lot, and I think that that is a genuine concern, because fishing is relatively cheap. Some angling clubs are under £100 a year, but you can buy a day and take about £10. The add-on is quite high, potentially with the rod licence in those areas, compared to some other areas. From the South West, there has always been a competitive advantage on self-fishing compared to the Lake District, where it is required for a rod licence. The trouble is that it keeps going back to its finance issue. The levy, if it was suggested at £4.5 billion before, would not even raise £2 million, I believe, on the sort of set rate of values at the moment. It is difficult about it exactly. If finance, we have raised it with other members a number of times, finance of the new structure is going to be so key to this, that it is trying to get this balance between where the money can come from and that it is not counterproductive, because the whole thing gets undermined if you suddenly lose anglers. There was a previous question talking about children and trying to get women into fishing. Those are areas that most trusts are very keen on trying to push. There are lots of little projects. I think that people are finding it difficult. We can take out kids fishing, they love it, the scheme runs very well, but there does not seem to be a huge take-up afterwards. It seems to be that maybe children nowadays with a lot of sports get involved, do it, tick the box and move on. It is how to try to step that next step to keep them in it. Women to fishing—sorry, convener, so we are going back to the previous question. That is something that we have been trying to look into. We think that one of the key things that I think Andrew Thin brought up again was all about information. One of the key things that the feedback that we are getting is that women want toilets and some of the other issues available at the fishing. That is not something that is often highlighted when people are told about different fishing and extra resources and stuff like that. There is a big thing. If we wanted to market fishing, it would be better information about fishing. That is absolutely key to it. Sanna has a very declared position against rod licences. It is founded on a fairly flimsy amount of assessment of the membership, but that is the view that is portrayed all the time. Actually, I am firmly in favour of rod licences. I am a vice chairman of a committee, but there you go. We are trying hard to encourage ladies and women into the sport, and children into the sport, as Ron says. We are linked together in that. Locally in the Bitlockery area, we have given free membership to juniors for many years now, and it is having very little effect. There has been a big change in what youngsters want to do. In the past, we would go out and fish burns and things, and all that has all gone, as far as I can see. Alasly, a lot of the burns have been denatured by what we have done to them as well. They need to be improved and money needs to be spent there. However, there has been a big demographic change in the way that the anglers deal with fish now. The wild fisheries that the review is supposed to be about, but probably more trout anglers now fish for stocked rainbow trout than they do for wild fish. They are sustainable because they are sustained by fish farms. All they need is the water to put the fish into. The toilets can be provided, the information can go out so that the ladies can see that they are going to be okay there, and the youngsters have then got to pay the money that is required for catching the fish. That is the sticking point. The youngsters have not got the money to spend on the fisheries that cost a lot to take the fish, even on a catch and release basis. There are a lot of different aspects here that I have to take into account. I think that we are speaking from the same hymnbook overall. I think that we, yes, indeed, hear you, Campbell Adamson here. Just to really ask you a question about the attitude from foreigners, as you put it, or people coming to Fish and Scotland from outwith. But people go to other countries to fish in the same way? What I am saying with that is the point of that is that those people who go abroad all buy their licences. I am asked quite often, where do I buy a license to Fish and Scotland because they are used to fishing, used to licences. I was backing up what you said. The other advantage of licences—I am not keen personally one way or the other—is that it gives buy-in. It gives the people who buy a licence a feeling part of that system, and that is quite important. Instead of going fishing and despairing, but it has been like being a member of a club, you tend to take much more interest in the running of the club. Ron Woods, I think that we get the fact that we are... Briefly, I am one of those guys who goes abroad to fish. The thing that attracts me to go someplace is the quality of the fishing. If I have to pay a local licence, I accept that. If my fishing permit there costs me a bit more, it is certainly costing me less than the journey to go there. People are buying the overall experience and they do not mind that. If I can possibly quote an example from Mr Ferguson's own constituency area, we used to have an awful lot of tourist anglers coming to fish Loch Keng. There is no money to control the crayfish in Loch Keng, and the fishery has declined, and the tourist anglers have declined. I do not think that there would be many tourist anglers or any of the regulars like myself who fish it who would quibble about paying a bit towards management if that money was going to control the crayfish and make it a better fishery again. Sarah Boyack, then Jim Hume. It was a question to follow up about the information for people either locally or from other parts of the UK or people coming from abroad to what extent well maintained websites would actually help so that you would know in advance or you could be encouraged to go at certain areas. To what extent the new system suggests would help that or to what extent local organisations are already doing that. If you are going abroad, you are not just going to go abroad and then bowl along to somewhere, you will check it out in advance. To what extent we are actually doing that properly or whether that could be improved? I think that we probably can, but certainly people... To get witnesses' views on it. Nodding kind of thing. What do the witnesses do? Our local angling body in Putlossary has its own website and deals with selling the permits through the website, giving the information to everybody about where the fishing is available and where to go and what the rules are. We have gradually got other members of the area to come into our website. They are moving in now. Loch Tumill, Loch Rannach are moving in to join us in the same service. This has been done through the local protection order, which of course we are moving into an area here of discussion, but it is proving to be a major success. Whether that should be a model for other areas or they should all have their own ones that are slightly different, I do not know, but it is certainly a big step forward in providing information. That is good. That is helpful. Jim Hume. Thank you very much. We have obviously heard different views on rod licence, which is not surprising a barrier to salmon. I am happy to pay a bit to quote Ron Woods. I just wonder from just to three maybe guests here what they would say was a reasonable amount for a licence. It is not a barrier to youngsters, but Ron Woods is quite happy to pay per year or per month or per week or per day. He will not have an option for bidding for the lowest level of levy. It is a reasonable question, because nobody is going to blink at a pound, but they might blink at 100 pounds a day for extreme examples. True, but then you might compare it to going to a football match or playing around golf or whatever. I do not know whether it is a fair question. Anyone wants to respond at all? Ron Woods. It seems to me that it would be perfectly possible to structure it, so that young people either had it free or for a very nominal cost. Personally, I fish a bit in England and reasonably happily shell out 25 pounds or thereabouts a year for my rod licence for there. I would not blink an eye about having to do the same in Scotland. I might blink an eye if it was a three-figure sum, but everybody will have their own attitude. However, it is important that you can have a structured system so that, for instance, visiting anglers can buy one for a week for a comparatively small amount, and particularly so that juniors or I strike, I hesitate to say pensioners, because it might be self-interest, but juniors or pensioners or the disabled might be able to get reduced fees. I think that that is all in the detail rather than the principle. Thank you for that, Jim. I think that we want to move on to sustainable harvest, since this is quite a key part of what Alex Ferguson is going to kick off. Before I do so, I might comment that if we are going to use the rod licence to get rid of crayfish and lochken, we are looking at more than £25 a head, but that is just a mere aside. It is a huge problem. Yes, thank you, convener. If we could move on to this whole subject of sustainability, because that really is what is at the heart of this entire strategy, really. I have been trying to identify the evidence that suggests that rod caught salmon are a threat to the sustainability of particularly salmon stock. Killing rod caught salmon has a negative impact on the sustainability of the species. Twice last week, I asked Andrew Thin about that evidence.  Given the number of nets that have spectacularly declined over the years and have been bought off, I think that that probably would not be a huge surprise. Do people recognise that?  Yes, I can imagine that there will be a few answers to this. So, Huey Campbell, Adamson first. Just a quick matter of fact, and I have spoken to Andrew Thin on this, in the last five years, the number of fish caught, a kill by anglers, has been less than the number of nets. I will immediately say no, that is not a comment against nets. It is a comment against the fact that nets can have a huge influence in certain areas. That is a different question, but certainly Mr Thin has accepted that his information was erroneous to say that there is more fish killed by anglers. Let us be quite clear about this. He said that in most years—he did not talk about the last five years, he talked about in most years—a significant number of fish are killed on rivers by rods, and he is quoting exactly that. What I was trying to get last week is that we are told that this whole strategy must depend on the best scientific evidence available. I have no argument with that whatsoever. Can anybody point me towards the evidence that shows that angling has a detrimental impact on the sustainability of salmon stocks? First of all, James Mackay, and then Nick Kim. You can see that Marine Scotland is sticking the figures every year and going back over your reports. Every year, as we are saying, if the anglers are killing—like 2012, for instance—the anglers killed 22,500 fish, I think the netting killed probably just about half of that. Go further on that. It used to be 18 per cent that we talked about for mortality for catch and release. Okay, it is now the goalposts have changed, and it is coming down now on what he is saying. It is about 8 to 10 per cent mortality for catch and release fish. Now, if there are 100,000 fish killed or caught by anglers on release, you can still add—anybody can do the sum—a 10 per cent cannot 10,000 fish that has killed or dies due to catch and release. In the year of that year, 2012, you could go to say that the 22,000 actually went to 34,000 fish that died that year. Further more, you can go on to angling into the latter part of the season, however rivers in the north do not stop on the 30th of September, but there are some rivers in Scotland on their fishing into November. For me, anybody could know that a heavily pregnant hen was getting pulled in over their gravel beds in November. It is going to pre-enchews spawn. So how many thousand fish have been caused mortality through angling in that case? Can Hughie tell me that one, please? Well, since you have been addressed directly in this case, please do it then. There are various points. I do not know how you are going to handle a convener, but I have the figures here from Reen Scotland. I can certainly read them out. Just taking your case, James, you mentioned 2012. The nets killed that year, as you said, quite rightly, 16,230, and angling, the rods killed that year 22,000, which is greater. However, you take the following year—this is where we have to be careful with statistics as having changes—but the end of all, in 2013, nets killed 24,370 and rods killed 13,532. I do not want to get sidetracked on who is killing more. All I want to say is that I think it will come on to is the fact that we are killing too many fish, and that is something that we can talk about later. To take on the question that I was rather asked to—well, you brought up—is there any proof that angling makes a difference to catch at two stocks? I may be what Nick was going to come on to, but if you take proportions, and it is a very dangerous thing, and it is very enact, but if you do say that one in ten fish are going up a river is caught by an angler on which 70% are returned, that means that less than 3% of the number of fish are going up a river is a very small proportion that is actually killed on that proportion. I still do not think it is right. Personally, I would say that even that 3% is too high in some rivers. The point is that you have got to take back to the fact that we are killing too many fish overall, whether it is anglers or nets, and I do not want to differentiate between the two. Mike Russell will expand on the point, and then we will bring in Nick. I think that this is really important, because if catch and release is producing mortality, and I think that it is, except that it does produce mortality, we need to know what level of mortality exists in that. It is vital that we are going to understand the figures. Mr Mackay has presented an argument that the figures would indicate that the difference between the two methods are producing roughly the same result. I entirely agree that we have to reduce that result, but the question is if both methods have to be reduced, we need to understand precisely what the numbers are. The mortality in the catch and release, Hughie Campbell-Abb and some are saying what, 3%? May I come in? The figures that I think I may have sent you, which was something from the mixed stock working group, which was a Government-funded organisation, talked with James and I about it on. The paper was submitted there, which came out about 3%. I think that there is quite good evidence on that. I would rather actually bow down to Mr Young to explain that better than I am. He is much clever on this. Mr Mackay has indicated 8%. That is a big difference. Where are those figures coming from? 18% is what was the known fact that everybody was using, but as I noticed lately, it has now changed by somebody to around about 8% to 10%. Thank you, convener. Can I go back to the first principles on this? I think that it is important to understand that it is not actually the actual number of fish that are killed that is important. It is the number in relation to the size of the stock. Salmon are not all one stock. On my river, the tweed, we have got at least six, maybe seven different stocks of fish, and they have different conservation statuses. The important thing is to apply the right level of management to each of those stocks. We know, for example, that the early running fish, the spring fish, are very vulnerable, and we have now quite rightly got some legislation to protect them. We have got our own voluntary legislation, as have most other rivers, but the absolute number of fish is only relevant compared to the total amount of the run, and that is variable both between rivers and within rivers. Until we understand that, the actual number of fish that is killed is not relevant. On my river, the tweed, angling, you first of all have to start with angling as an incredibly inefficient way of catching fish. We think that the percentage caught by angling is quite variable. Probably the best information of this comes from the Welsh Dee, and the very early running fish, the spring fish, which is rare and we know shouldn't be killed, anglers can probably catch 40% of those. But if you go to the very late running fish on the tweed, the catch of those can be, well, it's certainly less than 10%. It might be as little as 5% on average, and in some years, when there's a really big run, like it was in 2010, the actual percentage catch is probably less than 1%.  But if you're killing a small proportion, it doesn't really matter whether it's 5% or 10%, but you need to know the size of the run. And I think we should stop talking about absolute numbers of salmon, because they're not all the same. There's a very strong purpose in talking about absolute numbers, which is inevitably the outcome at the end of this discussion will be pain for people because they will reduce the number of fish that they are catching. It's inevitability. I think that nobody is in any doubt about that. We need to understand numbers, and we need to set two different types of things against each other, one of which is sporting activity, and the other one is a long-standing traditional method of catching fish, which is a commercial method. I'm not taking sides on this, but it is absolutely important that we understand numbers because there will be a reduction for both sides of that equation, and we need to set that against each other. So I'm sorry, I'm not going to be deflected from talking about numbers. I'm quite happy to think about sophistication in those numbers, but it is vital that we talk numbers. Can I just agree with Mr Russell entirely on that? I don't think we should be deflected from numbers, and all that he says is absolutely right. The only thing I was saying was you need to know the size of the total run for each stock of fish before you can determine what's the safe level to kill. I'll go back to the balance between a net-killed and a rubber-killed. Net-killed, as were very much reminded, were killing mixed-stock fish in the ocean, and in recent years we had Marine Scotland doing scientific work with me, and the results were great, and it showed that our spread of what we were killing was over a massive area between East Coast and West Coast of Scotland, and there was only a small number of fish. Anyway, we'll go back to killing on the rivers. Killing on the rivers is fish that is in the system, a ready to spawn, and we want to call them mixed-stock as well, which they're coming in and out of the river, but we'll see it there on the river on the part of that river as a component for spawning. The 16,000 or the 22,000 or the 34,000 fish that's killed within our river system, or systems in Scotland, is a greater impact than the 16,000 or whatever 1,000 fish that's killed on the coast, because that fish that's on the coast isn't a part of the component of the rivers that we're talking about. Now, you're talking about the spring run, and now your spring run, conservation now has gone through, and we have to adhere to it, and we have given 15 or 16 years, which is a reference subject, but we have given that over the years for conservation reasons. Now, with Anglain today, they're not allowed to kill a fish until the 1st of April, so that fish is going to go into the river system, and it's going to be in there. It is a spring fish, spring run fish, so what happens is that spring run fish in June or July is still in the river system, and it's going to be caught and possibly killed, so I would go to what Anglain was, and I would suggest that possibly, if you want conservation, is 100 per cent catch and release on your river systems. Possibly, you might have to open a small window within the season that some of your anglers or randing clubs might need to get Saturday morning fish for the pond. I don't know how the ministers or anybody could work that one out or not, but we feel that the damage has been done within the river system is more than the sea, and this gentleman here has just indicated that there are six or seven different species of fish or mixed stock within the tweed system. Now, this is just getting us back to, again, mixed stock fisheries, where they're slayed back to the thing again that mixed stock is not only on the coast, mixed stock is within your river systems as well, so if you're killing them within the river systems, you're also killing mixed stock. Graham Dey? Yes, but let's look at it in a slightly different way. Let's assume that the salmon are a national asset, right? I was looking back at figures that we looked at as a committee in December when we were looking at the secondary legislation on the close times. If you take the South East, for example, in 2013, 7,159 fish were ignored as being caught by the Netsmen. I'm not having a go at netting, and they just said these figures. 522 were caught by rod of which 77 per cent were released. Now, there's a quick calculation that means that even if 18 per cent of the release fish died, we're still talking about 600 fish being killed by rod set against 7,000 plus by Nets. Llywydd, cwm yn fawr o sefydig? I actually just seen the count figures yesterday for your asks, or one of the asks, and it was quite incredible to see the figures that went over the counters of the ask right through the whole of the summer. Maybe April was probably the least of my memory. The South East, by all reports, is a lack of participation in fishing, I think, to produce the figures. If you haven't got the effort, you're not going to have the fish. I think that maybe you have a catch-22 there, I don't know, but at the end of the day, I think that a lot of the issues are within the catchment and the catching powers. Let's see if we can now try and tie this up just now. So, Huey Campbell-Adamson, first of all, before we move on. Thank you. Just a couple of things if I could just update what Mr Day was mentioning the figures. Last year's figures are about 5,200 caught in the Nets off the South Esk, and in the river themselves, 50 fish were killed, 500 were caught and 50 were killed. So, if you're taking even 10% of those, it's a very small number that it's doing, but that's in part. The other part you mentioned quite rightly, James, about the counter. The counter has been, for our five-year average, has been running at 14,000. It's the last three years. It's now down to 9,000, which is showing that there's a problem, and I think that there is a problem, and that may be something coming on to convener afterwards, but there is a problem. But please don't get it. I'm not attacking Netsman. I'm not attacking Netting. I'm attacking all exploitation. In a perfect world, in a perfect world, I would agree with you, totally we should have no killing of any fish. One point. One point. It's been known, Hughie, that you want to see the end of Netting. You want to see the end. It's common knowledge. She actually told somebody on the bus bank of the Esk that he want to see him at a business in the next 15 years. So, whether you like it or not, it can go to a court of law or not because that can be said, that you said that to a person. You want to run a Netting under a deaf Netsman. So, you can go under any cover you want. That's practical. Okay. I recognise that we have a huge conflict here, which is something that can only be decided ultimately by a Wild Fisheries review that's turned into law, and one where it looks at sustainability and figures for those as the basis of any calculations about who kills what. Alec Ferguson started this particular… I want to apologise. Last half an hour, but having said that, my original question was about the lack of scientific evidence. What I think the whole this debate has thrown up is a desperate need for more. We need more science and research into this whole issue. But, to move the debate on, the proposal within the review is that the sustainability issue should be addressed by introducing a licence to kill fish, killing wild salmon. I pick up greatly diverging opinions about this, not least because of the practicalities of applying for quota before the season has even begun. I think that Mr Young referred earlier to the difficulty of doing that when you don't even know what kind of run you're going to have. I just wondered if what panellists would like to comment on this proposal to introduce a licence to kill and whether they think it will be effective in what it's setting itself out to do. Maybe if anybody wants, they could touch on some of the practicalities, like how do you set the quota, how do you allocate it along a certain river? I'd just be really interested in what anybody's got to say about that. Right, we've got some other people who haven't spoken for a while. Down here. Do you want to see something, Craig? In our guile, we have very few salmon. Our great asset in our guile is sea trout, but for how a system would work, a quota system, which I think is a good thing, by and large, the catch and release rate is very high in our guile. Our largest catchment, the all catchment, which Sir Jamie has a bit on, is 98 per cent catch and release because we have so few salmon and we've been advocating a catch and release policy. We have a few rivers that refuse to engage in catch and release, which is a source of great frustration. I think that this quota system would be a way of bringing those rivers, demonstrating to those rivers that scientific evidence is saying that you need to put those fish back. For how it would work, it would be very... I think that each proprietor would need to apply for a quota for their beat. Yes, and I can't see it. I think that to ask a central unit to or that indeed the local FMOs to do it would be to take up an awful lot of time with the local FMOs time if we were asked to distribute quarters and it could get very... It might make an additional source of income if we were to auction them off, but it might prove very difficult. I'm waiting for a red light, yes. The problem with the system is how would you determine the level of quota and we haven't got a mechanism doing that because we don't know what the run would be on the tweet. The run can vary about up to three times. We've had a run of about 7,500 rodcourt fish this year whereas we've been up at 20,000, well over 20,000. You'd need to know that before the year to actually calculate the quota and that's the problem with the system. Then you have the practical problem of actually distributing the tags between the fisheries and then between the fishermen on the fisheries because you've got different people coming in at different times of the year, different times of the week, different days. It could be an absolutely logistic nightmare and a very expensive one to introduce them, but I go back to my previous point. You need to know what level of attrition you're prepared to accept on a stock. You need to know the size of the run. I'm agreeing with Mr Russell again. You need to know the size of the stock so that you can determine what level of kill is acceptable. I don't think that we've got the basis to do that. I think that kind of answers the points that you've made. I like Ferguson in terms of the difficulties that there are with this, but a willingness to explore might be possible. I'd like to move on to Graeme Dey, please. Before I direct, I just correct the record that I think I said there would have been around 600 fish would have been killed in the South Eskip, it would have been fewer than 190, sometimes as I passed my arithmetic higher. I'd like to get the panel's views on the proposal to create an offensive reckless or irresponsible management of fishing rights and get some thinking on what sort of conduct you think would appropriately be deemed to be an offence and how that would be enforced and can we expand it out a little bit and look at a question that I posed to Andrew Thin last week which was that, should we have a fit and proper person test applied in relation to the granting of licences? Okay, who wants to kick off on that one? Chris Pyddon Cook, have you got some thoughts? Thank you, Jim. I've thought about this from the perspective of the success that one would actually have of bringing an action successfully to a conclusion in a court and working back from there. And my concern for those who would support the idea is that I think that that would be extremely difficult. We looked at it in other walks of life, for example certificates of bad husbandry and agriculture and things of that kind are terribly easy to say but actually very difficult to do. The burden of proof, the quality of the level of information, it may be that you would find a situation that was very obvious but equally you could find a situation that was much more complicated to come to a conclusion on. I have doubts about it, not because perhaps one might have some basic sympathy with the ambitions of any angler or fisherman or legislator that fisheries should be run well but the actual process of successfully bringing it an action and bringing it to a conclusion I think would be fraught with complication and I'm not sure that it would be necessarily very easy for example for a bailiff to understand the full detail of it. I hope that that helps. James O'Ki. I would say that the qualification to apply for a license would be that if you had a heritable title on the rights to catch and stroke kill fish, I think that that would be a quantification of who can and who can. I would very much doubt that you could take it down to the individual angling clubs to apply. I think that it would need to be the owners of the prior of a specific level that would do that apply and then they would designate it to the running groups etc. I would feel that would be the only fear. Otherwise you couldn't take what to please Gordon and say who's a good guy and who's a bad guy. You would just have to run it on what they're heritable. If they have a heritable title I would say that they're a duty ball and then they get it. I should maybe be clearer in terms of the fit and proper person test because of course it is the right period in owners who would have to get a license for clarity but I think it's an annual renewal of licences so would it be appropriate if an individual was deemed to be behaving irresponsibly shall we say on the river, should there be a fit and proper person test applied in relation to renewing that license? It's something I haven't really thought to but the idea of licensing has been discussed before about estates. It's obviously logical to agree but it's practically as Christmas pointed out pretty difficult but if there's a crime committed by someone fishing on a river I think the proprietor under the vicarious liability obligation would be caught anyway. I just before giving a real strong opinion about this I think we'd have to look at scenarios of what is being done badly to justify it. I'm not quite sure where we go with that but the principle Graham's you say I think is absolutely right I mean in a way if you have a public resource as you quite rightly talked about salmon going through and be very parochial about salmon only yes you have a responsibility there's no doubt. Can I very quickly convene I'm sorry I'm going back to previously because I finished before I got the thing the idea of licensing is I think hugely good idea can I say that and I you know I'd put for an SNTA which certainly supported okay sorry a little bit you've felt you've got an answer to that right Sarah Boyack please I'd like to take us on to the issue of what we know about mixed stock fisheries one of the recommendations of the review was that any licence application should take into account the current knowledge regarding the conservation status of all the fish populations in the destination rivers and that we're appropriate there should be a precautionary principle approach adopted and the review recommended that where an approach would result in catches being significantly low below current levels reduction should be phased in to allow those affected to adjust so I'm interested in both the lack of scientific knowledge and how you would address that issue have the proposals in the review come up with suggestions it would actually fill that gap in knowledge and meantime is it right that we should take a precautionary approach and particularly thinking about enabling us in Scotland to comply with our international obligations okay we want to open up on that yes and re walker thank you and sanatics is strong view that we should take a precautionary approach to salmon and sea throughout the whole of the country not just in areas that close to areas of particular status for for conservation because the whole conservation issue should cover everything we're certainly well aware of international connection in that say in Greenland or the pharaohs they're they're easily aware of what we are doing on a day-to-day basis and deciding what fisheries should go ahead and what shouldn't so that we have to be aware of that in taking account of sustainability and everything else it's part of the discussion about whether it's allowable or not we think that if you wind down somebody's fishery for conservation reasons it shouldn't necessarily be sudden it's a good idea to if it was next for instance to bring that down slowly because it may want to come up again if stocks start to recover so we're basically in favour of most of that any other comments on this just now how well in that case we'll have a short contribution on this and then from James and then from Huey okay well i totally feel that it without scientific evidence and this precautionary approach precautionary approach is a very easy used word and precautionary approach could affect people like my living greatly by somebody closing down or slowing or easing down what we can catch because we need to catch an extra amount of fish per year to survive we are employing locals we're exporting out of the country 95% of all salmon caught by nets i could say from the major fisheries in Scotland and there's not many of us it's going out of the UK i personally put the francs and canada and all over not great amounts small amounts weekly and i feel that our customers would also be let down and it would need to be very much burden shading like it was like i Huey'll go back as he said we'll go back to the next of fisheries review that we were part of and recommendation 21 was that if there is a problem with stock it has to be burden sharing and equally burden sharing so the participation in angling would have not the catch on release would have to go to door and participation would have to come equal so because of the unknown quantities of going back we're going to roll down because it's all tied up together of course so it couldn't be done without proper scientific evidence i would say thank you right Huey just quick one i take the burden of trying to conserve our valuable stock and i absolutely agree we all have to i think stop killing so many fish the nasco question is absolutely right i've been lucky enough to attend nasco for the last five or six years it's quite clear scotland is not behind the curve now with its its lack of policy on mixed stock fisheries our problem in scotland is we can't we can't satisfy what nasco ask in their guidelines which is quite clear that no fishery should exploit from a river you can't prove as a surplus on well unfortunately as nick has pointed out it's impossible to really know what services we have in scotland because we have too many classes of fish going up each river so you might have a lack of spring fish as clearly we have an