Ieilraith cyflomartiaeth gwaith yn y Cyfnodau Cymru. Felly mae'r nhw i'w rhai ffordd i'ch gael i'w ffoeiliol i'w gwagodog, yr hynny i ddweud gwagodog. Maen nhw'r cydwion i sgoligau cydwion i gael busnes yn �mysgol. Rwy'n edrych i'r ddaf o'n anghylch gyda David Thompson i fynd i hynny i gael i gyfair, Christian Allard, gyda fan hynny i gael i gael i'w pandgyrch, Christian. Felly, mae'n bwyr i'r cymru. Felly, ydych i chi'n gweithio i ddigleiru? Felly, mae'n ddigleiru i ddigleiru i ddigleiru, ond mae'n ddigleiru i ddigleiru. Arweinio'r ddigleiru, Feir. Mae'r ddigleiru i ddigleiru i ddigleiru 3 negatif instrumentau i ddigleiru. Little Loch broome scallops several order 2015, SSI 2015-28. Loch U, isle of U, Westeros, scallops several fishery order 2015, SSI 2015-30. The common agriculture policy direct payments etc., Scotland regulations 2015, SSI 2015-58. Felly, mae'n cwrwp yn fathreg i ddigon i ddweud o fathreg Buttaot aeth heddiw y ddegon nhw'n rhoi prydder i ddiolch cwrwp ar ôl yn violon, ac mae'n ddigon nhw hyn yn arnym ni oeth y bysio â ddegon nhw ddigon nhw ar newid i ddiogel. Felly mae'n ddigon nhw, ac mae'n ddigon nhw o'n ddigon nhw i ddegon nhw i ddigon nhw i ddegon nhw neu ddigon nhw, ac yn fy mwy o nhw ar gyfer eu cas comingoedd. Mae'n ddigon nhw i ddegon nhw i ddegon nhw o ran oesd argymwy o ran o gyll cogitaeth na i ddechrau geisio hwn, gyda darllwg gyda maes tynno ar gweithio'r argodau gwarfa? Rydyn ni wedi bod y gwrs honi i'r ffordd i'r amser yn gweld i wneud bod fyddion chi'n cael y ffisier a chyflott yw Seri Cymru? Gwadd Teddannig o ffisierau'r ffordd i ymddugau a ddechrau, Fy dem y cyhoeddwn y Cymru ar Gwlad Gweiniddeidog y Ffyrgiad? Yes, thank you for your help, and I would like to raise an issue about this. Members would have received yesterday an email from NFUS throwing attention to what appears to be a disparity in wording between the government's basic payment scheme, Greening booklet and the actual wording of regulation 5A of the statutory instrument without wanting to go into Cyngor, mae'r adeutydd yn ni'n mynd i'r bodi yn cael ei cyffredinol i'r Ceydd Erddangol Cymru a'r newydd o'r cyfnodffennu gyda'r hollig o'r cyffredinol. Ac efallai mae'r asturio gilydd ar yr ardill yn credu am hollig oesio adeutydd hwn yn rhan o gwirithau sydd gyda'r cyffredinol, nhw ddwyw'r adeutydd cyfo'r gwirithau ac yn ar hwnnaeth a'r niw. Rydyn ni'n cael ei Ddweithio'r clyw y clyw y gallai miwr, dwi'n credu i'r ddweithio i fynd i ddechrau'n gwneud i ddweithio'n casig tuers i fynd i ddweithio'r cychwyn a chael i ddweithio dwi'n credu i hawddadd i ddweithio'r cychwyn. Claudio Bimeich. Mae'r ddweithio I 스�wyr yn ogymell o Alex Fhorgason i bob y ddweithio'r cychwyn ddechrau i fynd i ddweithio'r clyw i fynd i ddweithio'r cychwyn. And I think it's an important issue to be dealt with. Um not least because some farmers' understand have already bought seed for this year. It's just something I wanted to highlight about the importance. Alta gamesh, Tony Alba. I think we thank the NFU for their watch on this matter. We would have time in which to do so. Can I suggest that we write to the government and get this brought back for a meeting on the 18th of March.Are we agreed? Thank you very much. Rwy'n meddwl i'r next item, which is agenda item 2, the wild fisheries review panel final report. This is our second item in the agenda to take evidence on the Scottish Government's wild fisheries review panel final report from the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform. Good morning, Aileen, and welcome your officials, Willie Cowan and Carol Barker Munro. I wonder if you have any opening statement that you wish to make. Yes, thank you, convener, and good morning to the committee. Can I just start by thanking the committee for inviting me to give evidence this morning on the wild fisheries review. I came into post after the independent panel submitted their report, so I am very much playing catch-up with the committee, given your long-standing interest in and knowledge of this issue. The historical perspective is interesting and particularly relevant on this matter. Over the last 50 years, there have been a series of reports into the governance structures of salmon and freshwater fisheries. Despite the volume of considerations and the degree of consistency in terms of the actions that are recommended, there has been little in the way of strategic and holistic reform of structures. We are embarking on a challenging and difficult task. The existing legislation is complex. Views are sometimes polarized and held strongly. There are reasons enough why others have elected to retain the status quo, but we are doing the right thing in tackling an issue that has been put aside too many times. I plan to consult this spring on the broad policy options for a new management structure, followed by further consultation on a draft bill by the end of the parliamentary session. I strongly believe that we can work together across the sector and across political parties to design and deliver a new wild fisheries management system for Scotland that is truly fit for purpose in the 21st century. As the committee has noted in its earlier evidence sessions, the panel's report is thorough and wide-ranging. It contains over 50 recommendations for change, which effectively means a fundamental redesign of the management framework for wild fisheries. In that context, I am particularly keen to hear the committee's views on the report. I have followed your earlier evidence sessions and acknowledged that there is considerable detail that needs to be worked up in order to map out how any new structure might work. That is inevitable in a reform project as large and complex. However, in advance of that detail, it is helpful to consider the broad management principles and themes that run through the report and those that should also characterise the management framework, maximising the value of any of Scotland's natural assets. Scotland's wild fisheries resources are undeniably such an asset. We need a management framework in place that seeks to conserve them and to harness the potential that they have to deliver social and economic benefits to the whole of the country. Decision-making on the basis of evidence that might be incomplete on occasion must be embedded firmly within that framework, and it has to enable us to account for how we are delivering our obligations and commitments to those in the international community and at home. I hope that we can all agree on that. I am absolutely clear, convener, that we need reform, but I am also clear that, in progressing change, we must not lose the best elements of the current arrangements. You have heard and noted that the sector is characterised by considerable voluntary effort and knowledge at a local level. There are many examples of excellent fishery management taking place in parts of the country. In taking forward the next stages of the process, I want to ensure that we harness those good elements and bring them into the design of the new management system. I very much welcome the inquiry and hearing committee's thoughts on the review report. They are extremely valuable for me, as I consider the next steps in the reform process. Minister, how does the Government plan to take forward the review's proposals for a national unit with responsibility for fisheries management? At the outset, I said in opening remarks that, given that I will be consulting this spring on the broad policy options for a new management structure, I hope that the committee will understand that, this morning, I said that I am not able to do in advance of our consultation to take a position on the detail around specific recommendations, because we will be consulting on the roles and functions of any national unit, which will be a very much a key part of that consultation. However, we need to ensure that the balance is right between a national strategic overview and local delivery. What is absolutely crucial in designing any new management framework is that there is an alignment of accountability with responsibility throughout the system. Do you think that the review has established the right balance between the national accountability and local empowerment? I think that the forthcoming consultation will certainly seek views on the respective roles and functions at a national and at a local level. I am aware that there are a range of views about who should do what. I look forward to exploring this key issue in the months to come. I thank you, convener. Good morning, minister. I wonder whether, bearing in mind that there has been a history in some parts of the country of conflict between netsmen and boards, boards and government at the time, whether, in taking this forward, you will bear in mind that we want to perhaps get to a place where whatever new structures are put in place will help to reduce conflict to that nature in the future. That is a very helpful question. I think that the proposed national strategy would certainly set out the clear roles and responsibilities throughout the system, but some of the conflicts referred to not necessarily as a result of the structures, but as a plan-led approach. The clear understanding of such roles and responsibilities may help to reduce such conflicts. A controversial part of the proposals of the review is changing the current living contributions and possibly reallocating, according to national priorities. Obviously, that could cause some concerns in areas such as the Tweet, for example, where some large levees and their levees could go elsewhere. Andrew Thin said that that would not be a major movement of funds. It would be interesting to know what sort of percentage you thought would be able to be moved from one area to another. Also, is there any scope for legal challenges from some of the riparian owners to that part of the review proposal? Obviously, I am interested in managing a national resource. Therefore, it is important to ensure that resources are available for consistent local delivery of the national strategy. It is about having our fisheries management organisations of a sufficient scale to deliver against national priorities and the allocation of the resources available within the system to achieve that. Obviously, funding is always a challenging issue, particularly in the current financial climate. However, if there is to be an element of distribution, it should be on the basis of best value for money and agreed priorities for fishery management. You asked about whether we would be able to lead to a legal challenge. We are talking about a fundamental change to the management structures for wild fisheries and a new legislative framework for that system. A number of district boards cover several rivers and the principle of pulling resources prioritisation and cross-subsidising, albeit at a smaller scale, is already established. I am still concerned about what could be seen as centralisation. Obviously, if the ultimate control will be, as you say, an element of distribution, it would be interesting to see how much often that element would be. You said that it is national priorities, but Andrew Sin said that it would not be a major part, so there is slightly a conflict in what Andrew Sin is saying. If you have any particular ideas or suggestions about that, at the moment, the very fact that we are looking at the broad principles of a new management structure, I am keen to hear any ideas or opinions that the committee might have on that particular issue. Andrew Sin's report is predicated perhaps for the first time in having an actual national strategy for the management of the protected species in relation to salmon, but also the management of fisheries in the round in maximising the social and economic environmental benefits of fisheries of that natural asset. One of the propositions in the report is that, through the national unit, the minister would establish a national strategy supported by a research strategy. The FMOs, if that was to be taken forward as the report suggests, FMOs would outline how their local management initiatives would contribute to the national objectives. It is within that framework of building up what happens at the local level through into a national programme of work to achieve consistency and protection of species where that is necessary in maximising the value of a natural asset for the people of Scotland. The extent to which redistribution is necessary, I suppose, depends on what the final framework looks like. As the minister said, we will be coming out to consultation on that in more detail shortly. It is really a question to follow on about the issue of redistribution and the impact on the successful rivers, because the suggestion is that there is enough money in the system that you could spread that money elsewhere, target-protected stocks in other areas. Are you envisaging pump priming from central government? In one of the issues that we have suggested in evidence by the T district salmon fisheries board is that they have concerns that, if their money is taken away somewhere else, it limits their capacity to restock their fisheries. We have heard that from other areas, and they would suggest that they would then have to get more voluntary top-up monies locally. It is just how that will work. Have we got sets of figures in terms of what the financial gap is that you estimate we have on the rivers that are vulnerable and are not being properly restocked? I think that the issue of restocking is one that polarises opinion also. Some rivers do restock as a matter, of course, but advice from various fishery bodies suggests that restocking might not be the best way forward. It is an issue to consider, but in the round, as the minister said earlier, the principle of redistribution or working collectively between boards and rivers already is there. It happens between neighbouring boards and neighbouring trusts that have common interests. The principle is already established. The proposition in the review report is that there should be, for various reasons, not least economies of scale, a smaller number of management organisations that look after a larger area. We would need to understand, when the detailed propositions come forward, what those areas look like, and therefore what are the resources that are available within those new areas. Then we can figure out whether, at a national level, there is a need for redistribution on what that might be. Do we have figures that underpin what is coming in at the moment in different areas and what the sense is of what is needed in the areas, whether it is management issues on the ground, what it is that is missing that needs to be targeted? I think that the issue just now is that there is no national oversight of the management of fisheries. Fishery boards are responsible for managing fisheries in their own river, so the proposition here is that we take that up a level, to the strategic level, then we have a national oversight of the management of fisheries as a whole. So we are not replacing light for light here. We are talking about a complete redesign of the system and, on the back of that, we will need to figure out how the resources that are available within the system and any other resources might be necessary and how they can be achieved. Compensate rivers have been negatively impacted upon by activity else. We have, for example, netting in a mixed stock fishery, which sees fish taken that were destined to return to their native rivers. The issue of managing mixed stock fisheries is twofold. In a general sense, it needs to form part of the national strategy, but specifically, the ministers are already out to consultation on one of the recommendations in the review report, which is for a kill licence. On the one hand, as it suggests, it is to manage the number of fish taken from rivers or from coastal fisheries. However, the purpose of managing that resource is to ensure that sufficient fish are going up the river in order to restock to conservation limits. The implementation of the kill licence, once the consultation is finished and we have final proposals, will effectively answer that point. Fisheries will only be licensed to take fish where there is evidence-harvestable surplus. If a net fishery cannot demonstrate that there is a harvestable surplus for the fisheries that it impacts upon, it may not be possible to license such a fishery. How would you be able to determine what element of the fish that we are being taken at that point belongs to the river nearby and what element was perhaps headed for three or four other rivers? When we are talking about harvestable stock, how are you going to measure that? We have got some work undertaken by our science colleagues at Pitlockery, which have tracked some fisheries. We can demonstrate that, in some areas, fish from certain netting stations can impact on multiple rivers up and down a coast. However, this is part of the detail that we are working on. As the minister said earlier, none of this is easy, and it has never been done before. If I could just draw you out on a point that has already been made, I can absolutely understand the desire to have a national oversight of wild fisheries management and policy, but it has already been hinted at that each river is different, has a life of its own, and therefore one has to bring individual river management down to a very local level. I find it very difficult to see how this is all going to work without having further insight into the size and shape of the local management organisations. However, I wonder if you can give us an assurance that the eventual structure will still be flexible enough to allow the considerable local input that I believe is necessary for a river-by-river management policy within that national oversight, within that national structure? Yes, I can give you that reassurance. We have said that we are clear that we have to retain the best parts of the current arrangements. That is also in relation to our local knowledge, so, as I said, before we need to make sure that we have the right balance between the national strategic overview and local delivery. Obviously, that is something that we are very keen to work with the committee in terms of how we get that structure right. On a similar point but raising money, Claudia Beamish. Thank you, convener, and good morning, minister. We take this into the introduction of rod licences, which, as you will know minister, the review's proposal was that the Government should consider introducing them. I wonder if you could say what the Government's response would be at this stage to that. Very importantly, has the Government made any assessment of how the rod licences, how much it would raise in relation to the cost of administration? I have a further question, but I will leave that until… The report says that there is enough money in the system to pay for fishery management, but restructuring is necessary to maximise the value for money. Beyond that, as Claudia Beamish rightly points out, the report recommends consideration of the potential for a rod licence to raise revenue to develop angling opportunities. I am aware that you have heard evidence from others on the issue and that, in common with many other issues, the views differed considerably, so I would be extremely interested to hear the committee's views around the rod licence. When they have not been included in the proposed removal of the exemptions for some sporting activities via the land reform bill on the grounds that the whole issue of funding for fishery management is being considered, it is part of the wild fisheries review. On whether the Government has made any assessment of how much a rod licence would raise, the answer to that is no, because that has not been Government policy. Should there be any support for that recommendation to be taken forward through both the sector and the committee, then, of course, we would be very happy to investigate that further. The rod licence is as such. As the minister will know, the Scottish Federation of Course Anglers is in support of the introduction of rod licences. We had some evidence in committee about the importance of fishing traditions going on to the next generation and the opportunities for access to fishing and information for fisheries. Would you agree, minister, that there should only be a rod licence if an angling for all programme is developed in tandem with it? Do you have any comments about involving young people and making access easier for residents and for tourists? If I can say to the member that today we are very much discussing the general broad principles for a new management structure ahead of any consultation. I am keen to hear the committee's views on the introduction of a rod licence as well as the sector. In terms of our young people, opening up access to angling, I am very aware of a number of projects that are in place to encourage more young people into fishing, which are doing some very good work. We have the salmon in the classroom, but I think that that is how we move that forward. I am conscious that the Wild Fishers Review concluded that the third sector was probably the best way of driving the initiative and that the Government would be there to catalyze, facilitate and support. We are managing for a purpose and we are trying to make sure that we can maximise the benefits for the people of Scotland in terms of our socioeconomic and making sure that we are delivering benefits for the people of Scotland in terms of the economy, for our social cohesion, for access, where there is potentially a lot there that the sector can do. Mike Russell I think that the argument from the review was that it was unlikely at the time of financial constraint or perhaps unlikely ever that the Government would have a resource to invest in the development of the sport, essentially, and that the review panel also felt that Scotland was underfished. Those two things coming together suggested that the panel of the rod licence might provide the resource, both to develop the sport and to make sure that the fishery was more sustainable. If the rod licences were not to come about, what resource would the Government bring to the table to achieve those objectives? Mike Russell Excuse me. I am not going to comment on the resources because— The answer is none, which I suspect it is. I suspect that Mr Swinney would want to speak to me if I pre-committed the Government's resources. I think that it comes back to—the proposition is for a fundamental reform of the whole management system based on a national strategy. We need to understand what that national strategy would look like, what the structures beneath it would look like, what the split of roles and responsibilities would look like, and how the changes in the structures would alter the amount of resource that is available within the new fishery management organisations. Once we have all of that in place, we will be able to figure out whether there is a gap in funding and how best that might be achieved. I think that until we have been through the consultation and the process and brought forward specific proposals for a new management system, it is difficult to estimate what any financial gap might be. I am not postulating this from my own knowledge—I have very little knowledge. The people who are postulating this are the Wild Fisheries Review. It was a review team that argued in their report that there should be at least a consideration of a rod licence, and I repeat that the resource would not be available to invest in the future of the sport. If that is true—I think that the Wild Fisheries Review has been well received in terms of the quality of its information—I think that the issue is quite crucial. If there is to be no resource to invest in the sport and the development of the sport, then either the sport does not develop or it develops piecemeal and slowly because other bodies pay for it, or there is a major innovation of a rod licence, which I have to say that I have been very surprised during the course of this, that there has not been greater resistance to it. I think that we have had very little evidence. Even one of the witnesses last week who said that his organisation was against it, he was in favour of it, which probably was a rather odd way to put it. In all those circumstances, I think that that is a crucial issue. I think that the other area, if I could just deepen this for one second, convener, I think that the other area is in all the discussions that we have had about money, it is very elusive about what we are talking about in terms of resource that is required. There is a lot of discussion about moving resource from one place to another. There is a lot of discussion about the potential for resource being found, but nobody is putting a figure on it. I mean, I have heard no figures this morning, I think that it is almost impossible to find a figure on it, and if there is no figure on it and if there is no figure on the savings that might be made by different structures, then we are going to have to sit down and say, where do we find additional resource? If the resource that we have got so far has not produced the effects that we want, and there is no likelihood of additional resource being available, where do we get the money? I am not asking for money. I am just pointing out that this is a central conundrum, which I do not think that the fisheries review resolves, but it has a suggestion about how it might do so. However, it will need to be addressed because I have, alas I have some experience of reform that is meant to produce resources. Of course, all the reforms that I have been involved in have reproduced resources, but it is possible that that does not always happen, so we need to find where the money is coming from. We are very keen to working with the committee around that issue ahead of bringing forward the consultation. We are currently at a very early stage in our thinking around this, and there is going to be lots of opportunity for both the committee and the sector to be able to influence our thinking ahead of us bringing forward the consultation. If I may use time to grasp the salmon, at some stage, quite firmly, because there has been a review, we have had all the bodies around the table, the number of salmon is falling, there is a conservation issue that is becoming extremely pressing, and there is a conflict within the system, and people are going to have to take some pain in this. Sometimes it is better to bring the pain on more quickly than to keep talking about it in the hope that we might not notice. I would not want the minister to think that there is no resistance to the introduction of a rod licence, as Mike Russell has hinted at. I have had quite a lot of local and I suspect that she has had some of the same emails that I have had on the possible impact, particularly on tourism in some of the more fragile, some of the lesser known rivers. While I agree in a way that I thought that there might be more resistance to it, but what I am getting, and we heard some evidence about this last week, was that it would probably be more welcome if the funding received, if the resource that was freed up by a rod licence was put into the improvement of the rivers and the fisheries themselves, rather than necessarily a slightly nebulous at this stage angling for all programme, the details of which we do not know, but which to my mind builds a certain bureaucratic element around it that might take up a lot of the resource that was actually raised. So I simply put that as a thought. It is not by any means unanimous at this point that this is a great idea. I am not saying that it is a bad idea either, but I think that there is a bit of work to be done on it. The very brief question to follow up the process. I am trying to tease out because you are very keen to get our ideas and our views, but we need to have a bit more sense of, we have got the review, it has come up with a number of questions. Is there not a stage of answering some of those questions before you bring forward proposals later in the year? Yes, there will be. Once we have come through with the reviews, we are ahead of the consultation, I am very happy to come back to the committee at that stage. Will there be a publication of issues such as the resources available, what it is that needs to be spent and the costings of different options before you say that this is a structure that we are going for and we are consulting on it? The minister touched on earlier that there is a sequence of events. We have had the fishery review report, which has come up with 53 recommendations. We are listening with great interest to evidence that the committee has received so far and to your comments today. The next stage for us is to come forward in the spring with a consultation on broad principles of what a management system would look like. That gives another opportunity for iteration both here and in the wider sector of interests. It is after that that we then come to the point of what does an actual management system look like and what would the legislation to support that management system look like and what would it cost? We are a step short of answering the questions that you have raised in relation to specific resources, but there is a stage process to because, for one of the reasons, as the minister said, this has been on the stocks for a number of years with the possibility of reforming and nobody has picked it up because it has been so difficult. We want to make sure that when we get to the point of a draft bill that we have actually gone through the process and consulted and understood the issues and come forward with a bill that makes sense and garners broad support. One of the things that we are also going to be doing is we will establish an external stakeholder reference group to help steer the development of the broad principles for a new management system through to detailed proposals and new legislation. We have also seconded Alan Wells from the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards to the Wild Fisheries Team in Marine Scotland to help us with the process. Thank you for that. First of all, there are two things I have to try and get about this. You talked about bringing forward consultations in the spring. Can you be any more specific about the timing that this will know? We need to know what input we are going to get from you when we make a report to you. We need to be able to engage with this. It is obvious that your timetable or our timetable can be more precise about the timings. I will be around Easter time that we will be bringing forward the consultation. That is very helpful. I have a final point about income that has not been discussed. We know that the rebate for shooting rates is being removed. There were fishing rates as well in the past. What is your intention with regard to them and would they be a source of income? We come back to the point that we are at the point of discussing broad principles of a management system. The delivery of the revenue to support that management system is part of the equation. We have not taken specific views on issues such as fishery rates. In the context of the management system, it comes forward that there may be a different proposition for raising money. It is not about whether we are going to replace X with Y. We need to understand what the new system looks like and then how it can be funded. I hope that you will take into account the potential for fishing rates in that, but I am sure that we will be saying so more formally in our response. Can we move on to sustainable harvesting? Alex Ferguson is going to ask the next question. Sorry, I am still slightly shaking from the idea of fishing rates on top of an annual levy, because I cannot help feeling that the two are the same thing. We have to sort that out. The devil will be in the detail, no doubt. In the past, we have had fishing rates, so maybe it is something that has to be taken into account since they were only rebated. I guess that discussion is for another time. Mr Cowan has already mentioned the licence to kill that was proposed by the review group. I think that we will probably all be quite pressed by the amount of common ground that there is with stakeholders in some of these recommendations. This is one that caused a bit of a controversy. I have to say that when you look at it first, it looks very simple, effectively a quota on the number of fish taken, but I do find that it is one of these things. The more you look at it, the more complex and difficult it becomes, largely for practical reasons, how you actually implement it. We have heard evidence about the number of runs that each river could have of different runs of salmon, the number of beets on different rivers, the number of varying number of proprietors on the rivers. When you start thinking about how you apply those licences or quotas across those beets and proprietors and across those rivers, particularly given the volatility of annual runs of salmon and the differences of runs within each season, it begins to look at how on earth you practically implement this. I do absolutely understand Mr Cowan when he said that the whole purpose of this was to ensure not that certain numbers of fish are killed, but to ensure that a proper number of fish are able to head up the river to ensure the continuation of the species. Part of me—and really one of my questions, I don't know if you can yet answer this— but given the volatility and the variety of runs that can vary by up to four times from one season to another, if you are basing a number of salmon to be killed every year on one season's results, given that it might be doubled or halved the next season, how do you do that with the degree of sustainability in mind? How do you do that? How do you prevent what looks like a quite simple system to begin with, becoming hugely complex and therefore bureaucratic and very expensive at the end of the day? We are currently consulting on the kill licence, the objective of which is to ensure that harvesting in domestic Scottish waters is sustainable. I also want to clarify that our salmon, the Arra, our national resource, the Arra protected species under the habitats I am directive with a number of variables impacting on them. The fish are currently being killed with no assessment of a national level of the sustainability of that activity, so we need to try to put in place an appropriate regulatory structure in order to ensure that an appropriate number of fish remain in the system and they go on to spawn. A conservation measure for a protected species is about how we manage that protected species. I do absolutely understand that and understand the reasoning and the thinking behind it, but have you thought of yet the technical difficulties, the practical difficulties of implementing that given the variations that I tried to highlight in each river and in each season? We know that there are people who want this, including the Association of Salmon Fisheries Board, the Institute of Fishery Management, SANA and the Gatekeepers Association. There are other countries that retain the resource in this way in the interests of conservation, which is notably Ireland. We know that that is highly challenging, but we need to make our best efforts to address a strong recommendation of the report. That was one of the things that the Wild Fisheries review did to make very clear to us that it wanted to see immediate action taken around this area in terms of conserving our protected species. The review proposes creating an offensive reckless or irresponsible management of fishing rights, yet the committee heard evidence last week, raising doubt over how that might work in practice. Minister, do you believe that introducing such an offence would be workable? I also wonder in terms of issuing and renewing licences to kill fish, whether we ought to have in place a fit and proper person test. In terms of your first question, as we have already said, we are planning to consult on those broad principles for the new management system. We will consider, in the round, the appropriate regulatory requirements to ensure that there is effective and consistent compliance, but perhaps I will hand it over to Willie Perth. Again, as I have said a couple of times this morning, the proposition of the review and the consultation that will be forthcoming is not that we pick away individual points and try to fix something that is wrong today by addressing a single issue. When we have a proposition for a management structure, we will obviously need to have a weather eye to compliance with it. What works well in terms of compliance with the existing regulatory structure and what might be transferred over and or is there a different approach? When we come forward with the proposition for the management structure, the issue of the kill licence in itself will restrict the ability of individual proprietors to kill fish without the licence. As the minister said earlier, at the moment, the Government has no control over the number of fish that are taken either by nets or by rod and line. The kill licence in itself will regulate the behaviour of people in the fishery and will limit the number of fish that can be taken. To that extent, it may be that the kill licence impacts or positively impacts on the issue that was in the report. However, as I said, the key position for us in developing a new management system is what does the new management system look like? How do we ensure compliance? Ensuring compliance may be similar to what we have today or it may be different, but we need to figure that out in the light of what the new system looks like. If I may, could you explain where heritable rights will sit in relation to the licence to kill? From a legal standpoint, if someone has heritable rights, can they just not continue to carry on fishing regardless? The heritable right for salmon fisheries is a property right, and that enables the owner of those rights to fish. However, the Government in the national interest can impact on that right if it feels that there is a rational need to do so. Obviously, in the case of salmon fisheries, some of the stocks are vulnerable. Therefore, in the public interest, the Government has the right to impact on the property right. That is useful. During the evidence session last week, it was suggested that Scotland is now behind the curve because of its lack of a policy on mixed-stock fisheries. The NASCO position stipulates in its guidelines that fisheries should only be allowed if there is an exploitable surplus. On that issue, we also heard of the need for much more research in the short to medium term, which I think we will go into to discuss shortly. Do you consider, minister, that the approach proposed by the review is sufficient to allow Scotland to comply with its international obligations with regard to the NASCO and the Habitats Directive? In terms of NASCO and the EU, they obviously recognise that the mixed-stock fisheries present particular difficulties for the management of salmon populations and that is where the kill licence would provide a trigger to assess the impact of such fisheries on our special areas of conservation. One of the benefits of such an approach is the ability to use that process to manage mixed-stock fisheries. That will align with the approach and the requirements of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation and the Habitats Directive to enable us to be seen to be done so at the same time. One of the key areas that is identified in the review group was the need to have a look at the research requirements. It said that, although it identified some gaps, it did not think that we needed to substantially increase resources for data collection. When you look at the list of issues where it thought that there was more research needed, it is quite a substantial list of issues, criteria for salmon killing licence applications, the link between salmon licences issued and the impact on stocks, to follow-up the points that Angus just made, salmon-related data for reporting to the EU and NASCO, general information about habitat, productivity, resilience of fish stocks and what sort of enhancement needs to be carried out. A basic mapping of all our species' wild fisheries resource across Scotland, then looking at the issue of catch and release as a conservation tool, particularly looking at the number of fish that die through that process and the number that survive, then looking at threats to wild fisheries, and then looking at market research. That is one of the issues that you picked up about socioeconomic opportunities. That feels like quite a substantial range of research. Is the theory that that money will come up from the local money that is collected and that that will be sufficient to fund those research priorities? I can say that the fish's management needs to be underpinned by sound science and use of the best available evidence. Obviously, the review recommended a national research and data strategy. The respective roles and functions in delivery of research priorities at national and local level will be a key part of the forthcoming consultation. Research is currently commissioned and conducted at both national and local levels, so I would anticipate that under a national research and data strategy that this approach would continue, but I am going to bring in Carole Barkham and Rhodes to talk through some of the research that is currently being funded. Yes. Good morning. You are right. That is a long list of things to be looking at. I would make one comment that all of those things are not new. A number of elements of the work are already being undertaken by Marine Scotland Science and local boards. I would imagine that one of the first orders in drawing together our national research and data strategy would be to map exactly where we are with each of those pieces of work, find out where lessons could be learned and then be able to prioritise that list. I do not think that we would be starting from scratch in that a number of pieces of work are already under way, possibly under a different badger for a different purpose, so there is already a good bank of work there. We would look to build on that in terms of taking forward the national strategy for research and data. Would that be the first starting point to establish that research and science base now? The following question is really about the capacity of fisheries management organisations to carry out that research. Do you envisage people who are currently doing research for the Scottish Government being shifted on to that, or is this a question of the work that is done by local fisheries organisations being pulled up to the centre? I do not know if I can comment on what it might mean in terms of people being tasked with doing different things. I think that there is a question to be asked. An awful lot of what is in the wild fisheries review has to do with structures and reforms that can only be taken forward through legislation. There is also an awful lot of other work, like, for example, the development of a national strategy, which would not require legislation in order to get started on it. It could be that, although we are looking at broader structures, decisions are taken to start with some of that work now. What might that mean in terms of pulling together who is doing what and for what purpose? Could it be better aligned? Is there enough information being shared about what is happening? It might not necessarily be about moving people about but a shared understanding of who is doing what and making sure that lessons are learned across the piece from that. I think that that is a very helpful answer, because it feels like there is a large number of unanswered questions and almost scoping what we currently know, what work is going on, and then thinking about how the change at the local level will help with that. One of the concerns is clearly what the impact potentially is on the funding of local work for local management. It is to tease out the difference between a national priority and national funding that would come up from the local level for what is left at the local level to enable people to carry out that work. One of the suggestions is about looking at citizen science. You need a framework for reporting citizen science in, and it is just to what extent is the local mechanism going to be identified as responsible for bottom-up stuff or to what extent is it a kind of marine Scotland overview? Is it trying to get a sense of the national unit, just how ambitious it is going to be in terms of setting the agenda for research and then carrying it out? I think that those are issues that we will start to come through in the consultation when we start talking about who should be doing what. As I said, there is an element of work that can be done now to start mapping out who is doing what, whilst considering who should be doing what in the future and then being able to marry the two so that we understand the impact of moving from the structure that we have got at the moment to the new one. Costing it and thinking about the staffing resource as well is crucial. I just want to highlight what I think is the crucial need for local flexibility within this. I think that it is very sensible to carry out a mapping exercise of everything that is going on and bring it all together so that we have a clear overall insight into what is being done. There are local priorities that might not make the national list. I will give you, for example, the acidification that is the biggest problem in my part of Scotland in the south west. That may not be a national priority come the day, but it needs to remain a local priority. I simply put a plea to you to keep that local flexibility in place whatever the final structure might be. That is clocked, Mr Ferguson. That is a regulation and compliance question. Graham Day. I wonder whether the Government has any plans to look at extending the annual close time for salmon fisheries beyond those that were recently legislated for. I ask that in part because no sooner had the new close time arrangements been announced on the ESC than the ESC district board were asking anglers on all the rivers that they oversee not to kill fish until I think it was the first of July, which suggests in particular circumstances those with a local knowledge perhaps feel there's a need to go further than we've gone so far in order to protect stocks. I think it is important to ensure that the system in the round delivers adequate protection. Annual close times are part of the current framework, but we could also look at the issue in conjunction with the kill licence rather than in isolation. Such an approach might result in a similar outcome in terms of protection afforded to fish at particular times of the year. Again, that is something that I would be very much welcome to members' views on the issue. We know that there are a number of exceptions as you pointed out, Mr Day, that the annual close time within the ESC salmon fishery district has been extended until 30 April. Therefore, netting has been delayed until 1 May and spring fishing by rod and line prior to 1 May is on a catch and release basis. The extended annual close time does not apply in the extra salmon fishery district as the existing season start date of 1 May has been preserved. In terms of the annan salmon fishery district, where the existing statutory measures require the release of all salmon prior to 1 June have been preserved. Again, it has all come back down to trying to manage a species that is protected under the Habitats Directive. I turn your attention to protection orders, minister. The review has some proposals on these. Given the evidence that we have had, we should in fact see a national system of protection orders. We have had supplementary evidence that suggests that in some parts of the Tay system that they work very well, where there has been no problems, but in others there is a suggestion that, in fact, they could. The Tay district salmon fishery board broadly welcomed the idea of the principle and the recommendations. I wonder if you have a sense of how protection orders can be used across the species. In the current system, protection orders were intended to play a part in responsible access to fishing. Access to fishing is a theme that runs throughout the report, but we have touched on it very briefly already. It is something that I wish to see a key feature of the management system. I am therefore very open to suggestions about how that can be achieved and whether protection orders should be part of that. At this stage, we will recognise that there may be questions about that in the consultation. The opportunity in legislation exists to redefine or properly define the role of bailiffs. A couple of people in the committee have expressed concern in the other question sessions about the role. The report indicates that the police's position is that there are powers that bailiffs have that they are not using. I think that it is also concerning from my perspective that, across the environment, there are often people who take on roles for which a better judicial or legislative training is required. Sometimes, if they do not have that, or if they exercise it in the wrong way, it can create difficulties. I am only seeking from your commitment that this is an area that will be considered in the consultation. I think that it gives an opportunity to properly define the role of bailiffs. For example, some of the rangers in the Loch Lomond and Torsach national park qualify special constables that give them a proper context in which they can undertake some quite difficult work. I thank the member for raising that issue. Anyone exercising powers under the law must do so within a framework that has the appropriate training, as he rightly pointed out, along with the checks and balances. The system of water bailiffs is unusual in terms of law enforcement, but it provides a strong element of local knowledge and experience, things that many argue should be retained. I cannot take a position on the recommendations today, but I am very open to how fisheries law should be enforced and whether the committee feels that the recommendations that have been made are the right ones or whether something else is needed in the mix. It is important to point out that the enforcement powers available and the way in which they are exercised are different matters, but it is something that we are very keen to have a look at through the consultation. I suspect that if we end up introducing rod licences and licences to kill and quotas, that will require more policing rather than less. Therefore, the subject of who policing it is is extremely important. There is no point in having all that in place if there is not sufficient policing ability and policing with a small p in there. I hope that that is something that is borne in mind as those proposals are taking forward. Thank you, minister, on your team just now. That gives us a very good discussion on those matters. We will have a short suspension, a five-minutes max, to allow witnesses to switch over and we will suspend for the moment. Third item in our agenda today is to begin our consideration of amendments to part 4 of the Community Empowerment Scotland Bill at stage 2. I welcome the officials joining the minister. I welcome the minister again, along with Dave Thompson, a land reform and tenancy unit, Elizabeth Connell, a Scottish Government lawyer, and David McLeish, a parliamentary council. Everyone should have with them a copy of the bill as introduced the martial list of amendments that was published on Monday on the groupings of amendments that set out the amendments in the order in which they will be debated. There will be one debate in each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in that group to speak to and move that amendment and to speak to all the other amendments in the group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should indicate that by catching my eye. If the minister has not already spoken in the group, I will invite the minister to contribute to the debate just before I move to the winding-up speech. The debate on the group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up. Following the debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press it to a vote or to withdraw it. If that wish to press ahead, I will put the question on that amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw the amendment after it has been moved, I will check whether any other member objects and if any committee member does object, the amendment is not withdrawn and the committee must immediately move to vote on the amendment. If any member does not want to move their amendment when called, they should say not moved. Please note that any other MSP present may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshaled list. Only committee members are allowed to vote and voting in any division is by show of hands and it is important that members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerk has recorded the vote. The committee is required to indicate formally that it is considered and agreed each section of the bill and so I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point. We have agreed that we will consider sections 27 to 47 and any new amendments inserting new sections after section 47 today. If we do not get that far, we will stop at an appropriate point and pick up next week where we left off. We will make a start now by looking at group 1, the nature of land in which community interests may be registered under part of the 2003 act separate tenements. I call amendments 12 in the name of the minister, group with amendments 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17. Minister, to move amendment 12 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. The current provisions of the land reform Scotland act 2003 state section 331 that land in which community interests may be registered under part 2 of the 2003 act is any land other than excluded land. Excluded land is defined in section 332 as land described as such in an order made by ministers. The bill has introduced and amended the definition of excluded land so that it is land consisting of mineral rights to oil, coal, gas, gold or silver, which are owned separately from the land in respect of which they are extable with the exception of salmon fishing and mineral rights. The current provisions do not exclude other separate tenements such as oyster mussel gathering rights, right support and ferry and sporting rights. The purpose of amendments 12 to 17 is to exclude from the land in respect of which a community interest may be registered all separate tenements which are owned separately from the land except salmon fishing and mineral rights other than rights to oil, coal, gas, gold or silver. That means that salmon fishing and mineral rights other than the rights to oil, coal, gas, gold or silver are the only separate tenements which are land in which a community interest may be registered under part 2 of the 2003 act. Specifically, amendment 12 inserts specific reference to a separate tenement. Amendment 13 changes the wording from the plural to the singular to take account of the change in terminology from mineral rights to a separate tenement. Amendment 14 inserts reference to the exceptions to the definition of excluded land as a route in subsection 2A, for example salmon fishing or certain mineral rights. Amendment 15 amend subsection 2A to take account of the change of structure to either section, caused by the new reference to separate tenements. Amendment 16 ensures that rights to oil, coal, gas, gold or silver are not included in the exception of mineral rights from the definition of excluded land. The group of amendments seeks to bring part 2 of the 2003 act in line with section 6 to 8 of part 3, which describes eligible croft land. I invite the committee to support those amendments and I move amendment 12. I am not against the proposal at all, but just so that I can better understand exactly what the implications of it are, is there a full list of what other tenements include? I just feel that it is asking us to agree something that appears to be fairly open-ended. I know that you have mentioned oyster and mussel and salmon fishing, but I just wonder if it is possible to define exactly what that phrase or a separate tenement includes. We can provide a full list around that. We are also trying to ensure that we have clarity there surrounding what the separate tenements owned separately from the land are eligible for which a community body can specify its inches, but we are very happy to provide a full list. I think that I am useful before stage 3, if I may. Any other members wish to speak? Minister, do you wish to wind up? The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call the amendments 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 13 to 17 on block. I ask whether any member objects to a single question being put on the amendments 13 to 17. If no member objects, then, as nobody has, the question is that amendments 13 to 17 are agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 27 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call group 2, in which community bodies and crofting community bodies may be constituted. I call amendment 18, in the name of the minister group with other amendments, as shown in the groupings. Minister, to move amendment 18 and speak to all the amendments in the group. I am very conscious that there is quite a lot here for us to get through, so I will try to go through as quickly as I can. Stakeholders have indicated a need for legislation to offer a wider range of legal bodies that a community could use when forming a community body for the purposes of registering an interest in land or exercising a right to buy under part 2 of the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003. Those amendments offer community bodies more flexibility in deciding which form of community body best suits them. Stakeholders highlighted that the Scottish Charitable Incorporated organisations and community benefit companies as being suitable bodies for the purposes of the community right to buy. An amendment to the 2003 act provides that a community body can take the form of a scale in addition to the option of being a company limited by guarantee is set out in section 28 of the bill as introduced. Amendment 18 is a technical amendment to pave the way for amendment 22. That amendment seeks to add community benefit societies as another type of legal entity, which a community can use to form a community body for the purposes of registering an interest in land and to exercise the community right to buy. Amendments 18 and 22 are in response to stakeholders' requirements for greater flexibility in the types of body that are considered to be suitable for a community body. In order to be a community body, the legal entity forming the community body, which, if amendments 18 and 22 are accepted, will be a company limited by guarantee, Scottish Incorporated Charitable Organisation or community benefit society, has to have articles of association, a constitution or registered rules that meet certain requirements. That is in relation to amendments 19, 20 and 21. What are the current requirements is that the article's constitution or registered rules must state that the community body must have at least 20 members. Amendment 19 amends the list of requirements that a company limited by guarantees articles must comply with in order to be a community body in two respects. Firstly, it amends the requirements to provide that they must state that the community body must have at least 10 members rather than the current minimum requirement of 20. That was intended to address difficulties that were highlighted by the committee that some smaller or remote communities may experience in finding enough members to form the community body. Secondly, it amends the list so that the proportion of members of a community body who must be members of the community is increased from a majority to three quarters. That is to ensure that, even for community bodies where the number of members is small, the interests of the local community are protected. Amendment 20 amends the list of requirements that a Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisation's constitution must comply with in order to be a community body to provide that it must contain a provision that the community body must have at least 10 members rather than the current minimum requirement of 20. Amendment 21 amends one of the requirements of the constitution of a community body, which is a Scottish Incorporated Charitable Organisation, so that the portion of members of the body who must be members of the community is increased from a majority to three quarters. Amendment 22 amends the list of requirements that the register of rules of community benefit societies must contain in order for it to be a community body. Amendment 23 amends the list of requirements that the articles of a company limited by guarantee or constitution of a Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisation must state that the community body must have at least 20 members. If amendments 19, 20 and 21 are accepted, then that power will be for the minister to supply the requirements that the articles or constitution state that the community body must have 10 members rather than to supply the requirement that it has 20. Amendment 23 amends the power to also apply to the requirement that the registered rules of community benefit societies must state that the community body must have a minimum number of 10 members. Amendment 24, under the bill, is introduced. Ministers have the power to amend the subsections, listing the types of legal entities that communities can use to form a community body. That amendment will enable ministers to amend provisions relating to community benefit societies inserted by amendment 22. Amendment 25 is a consequential amendment resulting from the addition of community benefit societies as a type of body that communities can use to form a community body. The amendment adds the definitions of community benefit society and registered rules to the bill. Amendment 26, in accordance with the act of 2003 and the bill as introduced, community bodies are prohibited from modifying their memorandum, articles of association or constitution without ministers consent in writing during the period beginning with the application being made and ending with either the registration of the community interest in land, a decision by ministers that the community interest should not be registered, ministers declining to consider the application or withdrawal of the application. Amendment 26 extends that to include a prohibition on modifying a community body's registered rules in the case of community benefit societies. Amendment 27, in accordance with the act of 2003 and the bill as introduced, community bodies are prohibited from modifying their memorandum, articles of association or constitution without ministers consent in writing for as long as the interest remains registered or, as the case may be, the land remains in its ownership. Amendment 27 extends that to include a prohibition on modifying a community body's registered rules in the case of a community body that is a community benefit society. Moving on to amendment 33, the crofting community right to buy in part 3 of the land reform Scotland Act 2003 can only be exercised by crofting community bodies. At the moment, crofting community bodies must take the form of companies limited by guarantee that meets certain requirements. In keeping with the proposed amendments to part 2, amendment 33 seeks to add Scottish charitable incorporated organisations and community benefit societies as types of legal entity that crofting communities may use to form crofting community bodies for the purposes of exercising the crofting community right to buy. In addition, the amendment seeks to provide that Scottish ministers can add additional types of legal entity and a later date should it be deemed necessary. The amendment also seeks to amend the requirements of the articles of association of a crofting community body that is a company limited by guarantee. It also proposes to amend the requirement that the articles of a crofting community body that is a company limited by guarantee must state that the body has a majority of members who are members of the crofting community. The amendment seeks to increase that requirement so that the articles will state that three quarters of the members must be members of the crofting community. The amendment also seeks to remove the requirement for a crofting community body to arrange for its accounts to be audited, while retaining the requirement for crofting community bodies to ensure proper arrangement for financial management. That proposed amendment is to try and avoid confusion for the crofting community bodies about the types of audit that they must carry out and will prevent an unnecessary duplication of effort. The body will continue to submit an audit of accounts by the appropriate governing body, company's house, office of the Scottish Charities Regulator or financial conduct authority, as appropriate to the type of legal entity. That is in line with the proposed amendments that are made to part 2 of the 2003 act. The amendment also addresses issues relating to the definition of a crofting community for the purposes of the crofting community right to buy. It presents the definition of a crofting community may not always include all those who would consider themselves to be members of the crofting community. The amendment changes the definition of a crofting community in an attempt to try and capture those persons who consider themselves to be members of the crofting community, but it presently may find themselves excluded from the crofting community definition. An example might be a crofter who is aged 16 or 17 years old who would consider themselves to be a member of the crofting community but excluded from the definition due to not being included in the electoral register. At the moment, there are two registers that contain details of crofters. One is the register of crofts, which is held by the crofting commission, and the second is the newer crofting register, which is held by the registers of Scotland. We want to enable communities to be able to rely on the information held in either of the registers in determining who are crofters in relation to the land that they are trying to purchase, including both tenants and owner occupiers. Information on tenants is held in both registers, but, as we said last week, the crofting commission does not have a duty to collect information on owner occupiers, and that means that we cannot amend the bill at this stage. To set out the definition of a crofting community should rely on information about owner-occupied crofts held in the registers of crofts. Therefore, we have proposed to give ministers the power to make regulations to extend the definition of crofting community at a later date. If the requirements of the crofting commission in relation to keeping owner-occupiers' details on the register of crofts should change in the future, ministers could use that power to extend the definition of a crofting community accordingly, and we certainly propose to liaise with the crofting commission about that issue. The proposed amendment also seeks to remove the requirement that members of the crofting community have to be resident within 16km of the crofting township, which is situated in or otherwise associated with the croft land. If accepted, the proposed changes mean that the effect of the amendment would be that the definition of a crofting community would be that all those persons who are resident in the crofting township, which is situated in or otherwise associated with the croft land, which the crofting community body has a right to buy, and who are entitled to vote in local government elections in the polling district or districts in which that township is situated, there are tenants of crofts in the crofting township whose names are entered in the crofting register, or register of crofts as tenants of those crofts, are owner-occupied crofters of owner-occupied crofts in the crofting township whose names are entered in the crofting register as the owner-occupied crofters of such crofts, or are such other persons, or are persons falling within a class of such other persons as may be set out by ministers in regulations. Ministers will retain the current power to define crofting community in another way if it is, in their opinion, inappropriate to define it as set out in the 2003 act. I am nearly there. Amendment 2. The purpose of this amendment is to extend section 72 so that it includes reference to the constitution of a Scottish charitable incorporated organisation and the registered rules of community benefit society in addition to the memorandum or articles of a company limited by guarantee. That will ensure that crofting community bodies that are a Scottish charitable incorporated organisations or community benefit societies cannot modify their constitutions or registered rules without ministers' consent in writing once they have bought the crofting land. Amendment 2 also seeks to insert provisions that will allow ministers to make an order relating to or to matters connected with the compulsory purchase of croft land by the ministers under section 72. It also seeks to insert a power for ministers to make such modifications of enactments as appear necessary or expedient in consequence of any provision of such an order or otherwise in connection with the order. That is to try and mirror the power that is included in section 97E4 and 5 of the proposed new part 3A of the 2003 act. Amendment 40 is consequential to amendment 2 and ensures that where ministers under section 72 of the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003 exercise the power to compulsorily require land and by virtue of amendment 2 exercise the power to make an order relating to it, the order will be subject to the affirmative procedure. All in all, the group of amendments is trying to give communities a greater flexibility to choose the type of community body that suits their needs. It is trying to lessen the burden on communities by removing the need for auditing of accounts and ensures that smaller communities are able to take advantage of the right to buy by reducing the minimum number of members whilst ensuring that the community focus is strengthened. I encourage the community to support those amendments. Amendment 18. Thank you. We have one or two members who wish to comment. Claudia Beamish first. Thank you, convener, and minister. That was certainly a wide range of amendments to cover at once. It was just on amendment 21, and I welcome the inclusion of schios in this and that that has come forward from the Scottish Government in recognition of the contribution that they can make. I agree with the minister in your remarks that you said in relation to the amendment that the interests of the local community are protected. I agree that that is very important. I would like to know your thoughts on the increase from the majority to 75 per cent. What the thinking is in a bit more detail on that, particularly in relation to rurality and where schios cross quite a wide area, and whether that would in fact become more of a barrier rather than less. I am not opposed to the amendments, but I would like to understand that. The reasoning behind that was really in terms of increasing the proportion of members who must be from the community, from the majority to three quarters, was to assist in protecting the interests of the community, even in cases where a community body had as few as 10 members. It was really to try and make sure that we would try to strengthen the community hand in this, because we had a decrease in the number of members' proposals going down from 20 to 10. We wanted to try and make sure that the community was strengthened and protected as well. I also want to welcome the fact that you have broadened the scope of community organisations that can be eligible, particularly to include a co-operative option. I want to ask a couple of questions about amendment 22. In particular, if you could put on record in relation to sections G, H and I, if you could clarify who you think is likely to want to exercise this right, and what you would think of as being reasonable—implication is what wouldn't be reasonable—in relation to paragraph H, just to clarify what the circumstances might be where it would be legitimate for the society to withhold information. In relation to point I, who would decide in the circumstances where the provision was appropriate how those surplus funds were actually to be applied? Who would have the final say on that? In terms of who would have the final say on that, that is up for ministers to decide on that. The minister is going too far around the private sessions. The minister is going back too far for the private sessions, so there will be ministers who would decide that around amendment 22. It is clear that a community body is not less, so ministers have given it written confirmation that they are satisfied about the main purpose of the body and to make sure that it is consistent with furthering the achievement of sustainable development, so that would be for the ministers to do written confirmation. For each individual request, that would be for the ministers to do written confirmation. For sections G and H, it would be for each individual request, it would be for the community body to decide. There is no interpretation of what is reasonable or who you expect would want to get access to the information. It is also in line with the freedom of information request as well. For viewers at home, if there are any left, they would understand the classic highland definition of a croft being a piece of land bounded by regulation. I want to very strongly welcome amendment 33. Peter Peacock, in his evidence, the committee in November pointed out that the land reform legislation of 2003, welcome as it was, was hugely cumbersome, difficult and bureaucratic for communities to use, and that is partly because of the inflexibility of the legislation. Subsection 6 of amendment 33, if I am right, gives the opportunity by secondary legislation to define both a crofting community body and to define the crofting community, both of which create a flexibility that is not in present legislation in terms of community right to buy. Just for the record, because this is the type of thing that, if there is a dispute about a legislation, what is said at stages of the bill is important, presumably it is in the Government's mind to use that flexibility in a constructive way rather than a restrictive way to look at the emergence of new community bodies, which is the issue, for example, with the definition of a community body, and to make sure that crofting communities are defined in a way as working communities, which is the burden of what the crofters commission or crofting commission does, rather than to define them in any way that would assist those who are not working their crofts. It is just to make sure that we understand that this is a progressive and flexible measure, rather than a measure that might be used regressively. No, and I can give the member that commitment and that assurance that what we are trying to do is always to simplify the process as much as we could and to try to get greater flexibility into it. Obviously, it involves taking a ministerial power to expand by the regulation to definition of crofting community, but that is supposed to be in a progressive and productive way. Can I ask the minister to clarify one point? You talked about people who are to live 16km from their croft. What is that power in relation to the 32km rule, which I think was brought in laterally? Is this something that impinges on the amendments that you have brought forward? Currently, the moment that the crofting act uses the 32km, and this act is using the 16km, and the moment that the two acts are out of sync, we are trying to make sure that we have greater alignment? Yes, just a point to make. I would be concerned if it was to be reduced overall from 32km to 16km. It is not likely to do so. We will seek some clarity after this with regard to the two acts that do not seem to be in sync. Meanwhile, minister, do you want to wind up? I am quite happy to move our amendments. Sorry. The question is whether amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendments 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25, all on the name of the minister and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 19 to 25 on block. Ask whether any member objects to a single question being put on amendments 19 to 25. No. If there are no members objecting, then the question is that amendments 19 to 25 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that section 28 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 26, and the name of the minister is already debated, with amendment 18. Minister, to move formally. Formally moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 27, and the name of the minister is already debated with amendment 18. Minister, to move formally. A finally moved? Thank you. The question is that amendment 27 be agreed to are we all agreed. The question is section 29 be agreed to are we all agreed. We moved to group 3. Salmon fishing and mineral rights public notice of certain applications under part two of the 2003 act. Call amendment 28 in the name of the minister in a group of its own, minister to move and speak to the amendment. I can assure the committee that this one went a lot shorter than the last group was. In circumstances where a community body is seeking to register an interest in land under part 2, the land reform Scotland Act 2003, and the land owner is unknown or cannot be found, they are currently required to affix conspicuous notice to a part of the land over which to register an interest. However, it has been recognised that in cases where the community body is seeking to register an interest over salmon, fishings or mineral rights, and those rights are owned separately from the land that it is not possible to affix a notice to those rights. Therefore, in circumstances where the community body is seeking to register an interest in salmon, fishings or mineral rights which are owned separately from the land, amendment 28 removes the requirement for conspicuous notice to be affixed to the land where the owner is unknown or cannot be found. The amendment inserts a ministerial power to set out in regulations the type of advertisement that is required in the circumstances. I would ask the committee to support this amendment and I move amendment 28. Does anyone wish to comment? Nobody wishes to comment. Do you wish to wind up, minister? No, thank you. The question is that amendment 28 is agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Group 4, a period for indicating approval under section 38 of the 2003 act, a call amendment 48, the name of Dave Thompson, grouped with amendment 29. Might Russell to move amendment 48 and speak to both amendments in the group. Inveno, that is a probing amendment and it fits in very well with the discussion that we have had about flexibility within the bill. Section 30 of the Bill Amends, section 38 of the 2003 act, which sets out the criteria for registration of community interests. Section 30B proposes to cert into section 38, subsection 2A, which provides that ministers may not take into account the approval of a member of the community and I quote, if the approval was indicated earlier than six months before the date in which the application to register the community interests and land to which the approval relates was made. That proposes to give for the reference to the period of six months, it should be substituted as a reference to 12 months. This seeks to give more flexibility but, to be fair, amendment 29 probably does it better in the sense that it follows the consistency of amendment 33 and takes the minister the right of making a variation, and that variation is not tied to a particular figure. I think that the purpose of this is being met if the minister prepared to confirm, as she did confirm earlier, that the intention is to use this to increase rather than to decrease the period and that is why it has been inserted, then I think that I have no great difficulty in more press. I will move it, yes. Thank you. The minister to speak to amendment 29 and other amendments in the group. In terms of amendment 48, I welcome the probing amendment and I accept the point that Mr Russell has made that amendment 29 does it better. Amendment 46 increased the period of approval from six months to 12 months so that the ministers may take into account the approval of a member of the community if that approval has been indicated within 12 months of the date of application and that amendment was intended to give more flexibility to Scottish ministers to have regard to certain matters. The Scottish Government believes that it is important for the approval of the member of the community to be current and if the approval of the member of the community was given 12 months prior to the date of application it may be the case that the community's plans or the community itself may have changed during that time and that was why I would ask Mr Wathwood to withdraw his amendment but on amendment 29 to cater for the event that the six-month approval period causes difficulties for communities in the future and the Scottish Government has lodged this amendment to give ministers the powers by regulations to amend the six-month time limit in which the approval of a member of the community supporting a community body's application must be dated and that will obviously allow ministers to respond to any changes in the needs of communities for greater flexibility in terms of the time limit in which the approval of a member of the community must be dated and this amendment gives ministers the power to amend the time limit should it be considered in the future that this six-month qualifying timescale is a barrier to communities' exercise in the right to buy or is causing difficulty to communities when demonstrating support for applications to register an interest in land so I would ask that the community supports amendment 29. I suppose that I just want to clarify the point on the record that you see the potential regulation as expanding the six-month period and increasing it and that you don't see this as being used to decrease the time and I think very much keen to see this explored so that because a regulation would have to take some time to come through Parliament it obviously does give more flexibility and it lets you change or subsequent ministers change it in the future but just to be clear it would be about increasing the opportunities for communities by increasing that time and not reducing it. Yeah we don't intend to reduce the timescale that at all. Mike Russell, to wind up, I'll press or withdraw. Mike Russell is seeking to withdraw the amendment with the agreement of the committee. Does any member object the amendment being withdrawn? Nobody has objected to that that the amendment is therefore withdrawn. So we move on now to call amendment 29 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 48 to move formally. The question is that amendment 29 be agreed to are we all agreed? Thank you we are agreed. The question is that section 30 be agreed to are we all agreed? We are agreed. Move to group 5, minor amendments in relation to parts 2 and 3 of the 2003 act, including procedure for certain regulations. I call the amendment 30, the name of the minister group with amendments 38, 39, 41 and 43. Minister to move amendment 30 and speak to all the amendments in the group. This group of amendments are minor amendments which ensure consistency of wording across the bill and they provide that the long title of the bill includes part 3 of the land reform Scotland act 2003 in line with the inclusion of proposed changes to that part of the 2003 act. Amendment 30 is a minor drafting amendment to the wording of section 31, one of the bill, purely for the purposes of consistency with sections 28, 1 and 29, 1 of the bill. The wording has changed from in accordance with this section to as follows. Amendment 38, this amendment is to ensure consistency of wording across the bill. This is a technical amendment which does not have a substantive effect. The amendment simply changes the words of paragraph 2, 1 of schedule 4 to the bill so that it provides that the land reform Scotland act 2003 is amended to as follows, rather than in accordance with this paragraph. Amendment 39, section 37, 4a of the land reform Scotland act 2003, refers to land in which a community interest is sought. Amendment 39 is a technical amendment that will amend this wording to refer to land in which a community is sought to be registered. This wording is consistent with other provisions in the 2003 act. Amendment 41 reinserts the provision that the validity of anything done under part 2 of the land reform Scotland act 2003 will not be affected by any failure of the land's tribunal to comply with those time limits. Amendment 43, the long title of the bill, currently refers to the land reform Scotland act 2003, but only to part 2 of that act, which relates to the community right to buy. That is because at the time of the bill's introduction, no amendments to part 3 of the 2003 act were proposed. The amendment changes the long title of the bill to take account of the proposed amendments to part 3 of the 2003 act that have been lodged at stage 2, so I invite the committee to support those amendments and I move amendment 30. Are there any other members who wish to speak on this? Minister to wind up? No wind up. The question is that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are agreed. We move to group 6, late applications for registration under part 2 of the 2003 act. The call amendment 31 in the name of the minister group with amendments 50, 49 and 51. Minister to move amendment 31 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Convener, the bill has introduced amended early application process for the community right to buy in part 2 of the land reform Scotland act 2003. Those amendments to part 2 of the 2003 act will require a community body to show that relevant work or relevant steps were carried out by a person, although not necessarily the community body before the land was put up for sale. That is in place of the current provisions, which require a community body to show that it has good reasons for submitting a late application. We propose amendment 31 in order to make those changes to the late application process more flexible for communities. That is because there could sometimes be circumstances where, for example, land has been on sale for a period of time prior to a need being identified by the community. That would currently result in the community now wishing to purchase the land being unable to do so because it cannot show that a person took relevant steps or carried out relevant work before the land was marketed for sale. It may be that there is no other land in the area that would be suitable for their purposes, and there could therefore be a very good reason why the application should be approved, even though the relevant work or steps have not been carried out. Amendment 31 seeks to insert provisions to the effect that ministers may approve a late application if it can be shown that there are good reasons why relevant work or relevant steps were not undertaken to submit an application before the land was put up for sale. In addition, if it can be shown that there are good reasons that the late application should succeed notwithstanding that no such relevant steps or work were undertaken. For an application to succeed under the provision proposed by amendment 31, ministers would still have to be satisfied that the level of support within the community for the registration is significantly greater than that which the minister would have considered sufficient in a time use application and that there are factors in which the minister considers to be strongly indicative that it is in the public interest to register the community interest. Thank you minister.  I move amendment 31. Thank you. Mike Russell to speak to amendment 50 and other amendments in the group. As I think the concerns that were expressed by Dave Thompson whose amendment these are have been in the greatest part rectified, particularly by the amendment that the minister has just moved. I think that it is very important that there has been a recognition that in the registration process being refused as a result of late registration is a very frustrating thing for communities and very often it is seen as a technical barrier to success rather than an indication of whether or not the application was one that was worthy of being fulfilled. Everything should be done to make sure that those technical barriers are reduced as far as possible. In particular, in terms of amendment 51, what the minister has proposed does more or less exactly what is proposed in amendment 51, which is to say that there are, whilst the work should be shown, if there are circumstances—for example, if the piece of land came on the market quite unexpectedly—there are circumstances in which the minister can take a step backwards and say that we accept that, whilst the community cannot show that the work has been done, there are reasons why that work has not been done. Again, it ties in entirely with the principle of flexibility within this legislation so that communities do not find themselves disadvantaged or unable to move forward because of legislation that is unduly prescriptive. In those circumstances, I will withdraw the amendments. We will come to that in a while. Alex Ferguson spoke to amendment 49 and other amendments in. Thank you, convener. I will, if I may, just refer to my own amendment. I am sorry that the minister chose and did not talk about it, but I hope that she will in summing up. I am sure that most people agree that a late application process is not ideal, but I absolutely accept that there are circumstances that require it and that it needs to be part of the process. Just as there needs to be flexibility within that process, my amendment is designed to introduce a degree of balance into the equation by recognising that a landowner should not be unduly disadvantaged. I stress that word unduly by the late application process under two circumstances. First, if they have previously offered to sell the asset to the community, and secondly, or if they have entered into discussions with the community regarding the sale of the asset, but subsequent to the community has shown no further interest and withdrawn from the discussions. In a way, it is to prevent, and I am not saying that this would be a common thing by any means, but it would prevent the use of the late application process to somehow impede or prevent the sale by the landowner for whatever reason. I was interested in the reaction of Community Land Scotland to this amendment because they are not against this principle at all and, indeed, believe that it would help the proactive process for communities to purchase assets. I think that that is a very helpful comment. What I do accept in Community Land Scotland's email that was sent around yesterday is that this would make more sense if there was a timescale attached to it, and I can understand that. What I would like to explore with the minister, and if she could comment on this on summing up, is whether she agrees to the principle of the amendment that I have put forward, as Community Land Scotland seems to be, and whether she would consider bringing forward an amendment of this nature at stage 3. If not, I would probably withdraw this amendment in order to bring back a similar amendment at stage 3 bearing in mind the critique of Community Land Scotland, but I would very much like to know the minister's views on this amendment when she sums up. Following on from the comments on the amendment 49 by Alex Ferguson, I would like to highlight from the same correspondence from Community Land Scotland yesterday that they did highlight that changing the prior to an offer made within a period of, say, a year to any subsequent application would possibly help. Also making it clear to provide that the offer would be no greater than what an independent valuation as per other parts of the act that would take it in line with other parts of the act would be helpful. Providing ministers with the flexibility to consider any case made by the community regarding any unreasonable conditions on any offer or other factors that, in the opinion of the minister, made refusal of the offer by the community a reasonable action. I want to highlight those points because, going forward, we hope to reach a conclusion on this either at this stage or at stage 3. No further comments, minister, to wind up. What I would say in relation to amendment 49 is that I agree with the concerns behind the amendment and that community bodies should seek to agree to purchase land in preference to use in the community right to buy where there is an option. Any test along the line suggested in this amendment would need to take into account factors such as the price and terms that the land was offered on and the reasons for rejecting the offer are not completing the purchase. I am very happy to look at developing those factors and working with Mr Ferguson to ensure that it is fair to all parties. I propose lodging a more detailed amendment at stage 3. The question is that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We call amendment 50, in the name of Dave Thompson. Are you debated with amendment 31? Might Russell to move or not move? I will not move. Does any other member wish to move this? No other member wishes to move this, so we confirm that it is not moved. The question is that amendment 49, in the name of Alec Ferguson, are ready to debate it with amendment 31. Alec Ferguson to move or not move? I think that, given the comments of the minister and summing up, convener, I am happy to withdraw that amendment with the permission of the committee. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to move that amendment? The Alec Ferguson is seeking to withdraw the amendment, so no other member has stated whether they wish to move this now. Sorry, Alec's hasn't moved it, so I'm sorry that we can't move it. Oh, can you please move it? Before I withdraw it, convener, I wonder if I'd be allowed to move it. Yes. And I apologise for not doing so earlier. Not at all, thank you very much. So, Alec Ferguson has withdrawn this amendment. No other member has sought to do so. It is not moved. No, it's moved. So, if Alec's wishes to withdraw it, you want to read this out here. Yes. So, Alec's seeking to withdraw the amendment with the agreement of the committee. Does any member object to the amendment being withdrawn? No. Thank you. The amendment is therefore withdrawn. Thank you. So, now we move to amendment 51, in the name of Dave Thompson. Already debated with amendment 31, might Russell to move or not to move? Not. Does any other member wish to move this? No other member wishes to move this, therefore it is not moved. The question is that section 31 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are. The question is that sections 32 and 33 are agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. So, group 7, we come to now duration and renewal of registration under part 2 of the 2003 act. I call amendment 44, in the name of Dave Thompson group with amendments 52, 53 and 55. Might Russell to move amendment 44 and speak to all the amendments in the group? The again, convener, this is an issue of flexibility. Registration is a complex process. I appreciate that it's being made simpler under this bill and I think communities will find it easier to do, but I know communities do find reregistration, which is necessary in certain circumstances to be onerous. The question is how can the issue of reregistration be better tackled by this bill and there are two proposals in here. Again, I think the minister has moved a considerable distance in amendment to make sure that those are addressed, but I just want to make the point. The first of those amendments would have doubled the period for which registration lasts, in other words, from five years to 10 years. This was recommended by the land reform review group in the report in 2014, and therefore I think at least there should be some thinking as to why the land reform review group would say this and whether this is something that should be supported. In the renewal of registration, the question here is, if nothing—and things do change in communities clearly over a period of time—but if nothing material has changed in these circumstances, then going through the process of reregistration is a difficult one to do. The application for reregistration, at the very least, requires to be as simple as possible. It should simply pick up those circumstances in which things have changed. If it were to be done electronically, it would simply compare what was applied for a last time and what the conditions are pertaining and only change those things, which have changed. I think that both of those seek commitments from the minister to make sure that there is a simplicity in the process, that there is a flexibility in the process and that reregistration where it is necessary is something that communities can come to without considerable trepidation and knowing that the likelihood and the default position is that they will succeed in reregistration, which is essentially the purpose. I want to speak in support of the objectives of those amendments. I think that it is, as Mike Russell has said, about making it straightforward and easy for communities where there hasn't really been a change rather than putting them through an onerous reregistration process to make it as simple as possible. I think that, on the record, it would be good to get the minister's views on that matter. The second amendment, number 52, I thought was quite an interesting one, to make sure that the community knew that they were in within 12 months of their registration expiring. I think that that is a very useful prompt. Again, I would be very keen to hear what the minister has to say on that issue. I think that if that is about making it straightforward for communities and transparent, I think that I would be very keen to hear on the record how the minister thinks the application of the legislation could be made to ensure that communities are not put off by a bureaucratic hurdle just because somebody didn't notice it. The secretary of the group, for example, might be away for a few months and it's the kind of trigger mechanism that I think would be very helpful to make sure that the legislation is fit for purpose. Thank you, convener. On amendment 44, I will put on the record that I found the comments from both Mr Russell and Mr Boyack very helpful. Under the existing provisions of the land reform, Scotland Act 2003, a community is required to re-register their interest in the land every five years. Amendment 44 seeks to extend the time period for which a registration of interest lasts from the current five years to 10 years, and the amendment is intended to reduce the burden on communities who feel that the re-registration process is an onerous task. However, that would no longer provide indication of the community's current support for the acquisition, but it could also be the case that ministers would be unaware of other important changes to the circumstances that justify the original registration of interest. That is why I would propose to retain the current five-year period, and I would ask for Mr Russell to withdraw his amendment 44 for the reasons that I am going to set out in the other amendments. In terms of amendment 52, which will require the register of Scotland's keeper to notify the community body 12 months before the registered interest in the land will expire, I know that that is intended to provide adequate notice to the community body of the impending lapse of the registered interest in the land in order to provide the body with sufficient time to prepare its application for re-registration. Under section 36 of the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003, the register of community interests must include the name and address of the company that is the community body that registered the interest. However, we do not consider it appropriate to place the burden on the keeper as the appropriate person to notify the community body of the time limit for expiry of the registered interest. We believe that it would be more appropriate for this matter to fall to ministers because the data held on the register of community interests is owned by ministers and held by the keeper on behalf of ministers. I appreciate the concerns behind the amendment. To address those, I propose that the Scottish Government lodges an amendment at stage 3. The proposed amendment will require ministers to contact the community body and notify the body of the expiry of the registered interest in the land 12 months before the registered interest is due to expire. Consideration will need to be given as to whether community bodies should be required to provide ministers with up-to-date contact details so that ministers can notify the appropriate person. As a matter of courtesy, ministers currently contact the community body as the five-year registration period nears expiry in order to notify the community body that it will be required to submit the re-registration if they wish the registration of interest in the land to continue. I would like to ask Mr Russell to withdraw his amendment 52 and that the Scottish Government will bring forward an alternative amendment at stage 3. That is seeking to introduce a presumption in favour of a community body's re-registration if there has been no material change in circumstances since the first registration of the interest. At the moment, a community body may re-register at any point from six months before their registration expires, but the community right to buy team within the Scottish Government is part of their work processes and sends a community body a reminder one year before the expiry date, which gives a community six months in which to collect the information required for re-registration. The Land Reform Scotland Act 2003 allows ministers to set out a separate application form for the re-registration process and set out what information must be provided on that form. We have already undertaken to provide a separate application form for re-registration, so we can simplify the form and introduce a form whereby the community body can confirm whether there have been no changes to the original application as well as detail those aspects that might have changed. We would still need the community body to demonstrate that they have a sufficient level of community support for the continued registration, even if the plans that the community body has for the land have not changed. Therefore, the community body must demonstrate that continued support each time they make an application to re-register the interest. In essence, where there have been no material changes to the information provided in the original application form, the re-registration application form will require very little information other than the evidence of the continued support of the community. The main difference between the changes that we are proposing to the application form and amendment 53 is that amendment 53 contains a presumption in favour of registration where there have been no material changes in circumstances. The amendment also seeks to give ministers the power to set out the form and procedure for re-registration as well as matters to which they must be satisfied to allow the re-registration and factors to which they must have regard when deciding whether there has been a material change of circumstances. The amendment would mean that it would be for ministers to consider whether there had been a material change in circumstances rather than make a fresh assessment of whether the tests for registration in section 38 of the 2003 act had been met. Those tests in section 38 include ministers considering whether re-registration was still in the public interest and whether there was still community support for registering an interest. The Scottish Government plans to simplify the re-registration process. I am very sympathetic to the issue of re-registration, but, by way of a separate application form, it achieves the aim of making it less onerous on community bodies to re-register the community interest. In addition, it would also ensure that there is still community support for the plan and that there remain in the public interest and that the process is open and transparent. I want to reassure the committee of my commitment to ensure that the process is as open and transparent and simplified and is straightforward as we can possibly make it so. As a result, I would ask Mr Russell to withdraw his amendment 53. I am grateful to the minister for her positive comments. I think that, in terms of amendment 52, it is quite clear that the point that she makes is a valid and germane one, and an amendment coming forth from the Government to address that point will be very welcome. Can I just ask for a small bit of clarification to the minister? In terms of the application form, will the form or what is to be in that form be defined in guidance to the bill, or what other way will that be defined? I am certainly not questioning the bona fides that you are giving. I just want to know where we will find that out. Is it why it cannot be in the guidance? I think that if there was an assurance that the form would be in guidance to the bill, I think that the principles that you are giving are entirely correct. I do accept the point that the ministerial role needs to be clarified. That, convener, leaves us with amendment 44. The land reform group's recommendation was for 10 years, and I think that there is a strong body of opinion that believes that a five-year period is too short. Whilst, with the permission of the committee, when we come to it, I will not press this, I would ask the minister to consider as she moves towards stage 3 whether that advice in a land reform group is something that does require further thinking, because I do think that Mr Thomson will certainly want to consider, I am sure, in terms of amendment 3, whether he should continue to press the issue. Possibly with some sort of procedure after five years in terms of re-registration or confirming details, but I think that a longer period of time for a community is something that may be desirable and has been seen as such by others. I am happy to do so, convener, to have another look at that. I would withdraw 44. Mike Russell is seeking to withdraw the amendment with the agreement of the committee. Does any member object to the amendment being withdrawn? No member objects, so therefore the amendment is there for withdrawn. Amendment 52, in the name of Dave Thomson, is already debated with amendment 44. Mike Russell wishes to withdraw the amendment, but does any member wish to propose the amendment? No member does, so therefore it is not moved. In which case the question is that the sections 34 to 45 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We move to group 8. Appeals to land tribunals as respects valuations of land under part 2 of the 2003 act. Call amendment 32, in the name of the minister, group with amendment 42. Minister, to move amendment 32, speak to both amendments in the group. Convener, the land reform Scotland act 2003 requires that the lands tribunal must give reasons in writing for its decision on an appeal as to the valuation of the land within four weeks of the hearing of the appeal. The bill has introduced to remove this four-week time limit, however I am proposing reinserting the time limit for the lands tribunal to issue written reasons for its decisions, but extending the four-week time limit to eight weeks after the hearing of the appeal. It is proposed in order to provide the lands tribunal with greater flexibility when scheduling its cases. In addition to inserting an eight-week time limit, the amendment also provides an option for the lands tribunal if it considers that it is not reasonable to issue a written statement of reasons within that eight-week time limit to notify the parties to the appeal of a new date by which it will issue its written reasons. I am proposing the amendment in order to provide greater flexibility for the lands tribunal when scheduling their workload, while at the same time ensuring that parties to the appeal have a degree of certainty as to when they will receive the written statement of reasons. The amendment aligns part 2 with the proposed amendments to part 3 and the proposed part 3A of the 2003 act. Amendment 42 is linked to amendment 32. Currently, schedule 5 to the bill removes the requirement in section 62 of the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003 for the lands tribunal to decide an appeal and issue a written statement of reasons within four weeks of the hearing of an appeal under section 62. Schedule 5 to the bill also removes section 62A of the 2003 act, which provides that a failure by the lands tribunal to comply with its time limit does not affect the validity of anything done under part 2 of the 2003 act. Amendment 32 inserts the eight-week time limit within which the lands tribunal must issue a written statement of reasons. Amendment 32 also allows the land tribunal to, where it considers that it is not reasonable to issue a written statement within eight weeks, notify the parties to the appeal of the date by which they will issue its written statement. Amendment 42 removes the appeal of section 22A of the 2003 act and so provides that a failure by the lands tribunal to comply with the time limit in amendment 32 will not affect the validity of anything done under part 2 of the 2003 act. Amendment 32 and 42 are intended purely to ease the burden on the lands tribunal and gives it more flexibility when scheduling its caseload. Although there are no consequences should the lands tribunal be unable to meet the time limit, I know that stakeholders were very clear in the need to provide a date by which the lands tribunal is expected to provide its written decision in order to give an element of certainty to all parties to the application, so I would invite the committee to support these amendments and I move amendment 32. Are there any members who wish to contribute? Minister to Mike Russell? It's admirable and could be supplied in all legal circumstances, but we should remember, and I think that it's important that the committee does know Derek Flynn's view in evidence, that, in actual fact, there is no sanction on the land court for this. Indeed, I can't imagine those in charge of the land court or any other court accepting such a sanction. So, whilst it's highly desirable, and I hope—and I think that the committee would hope and everybody would hope—it would be observed, I don't think that it of itself is going to produce the result that we're wishing, which is that crofting cases do not take forever. Minister to wind up. Thank you for giving it all, just to say around the points that were made by Mr Russell, to say that, you know, if they are late, then it has no effect on the application, to just reassure. Okay, so the question is that amendment 32 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that sections 46 and 47 be agreed, are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 33, the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 18. Minister to move formally. In that case, are we agreed, members? We are agreed to amendment 33. I call amendment 2, the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 18. Minister to move formally. Thank you. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. We move to group 9, information to be included in application under part 3 of the 2003 act. I call amendment 3, in the name of the minister, and a group of its own minister to move and speak to amendment 3. Convener, this amendment relates to the requirements of an application by a crofting community body under part 3 of the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003. The amendment sets out that the application form must identify the owner of the land, any creditor in a standard security over the land with the right to sell any part of it, and where they are being purchased separately from the land, the tenant of any tenancy of land over which the tenant has an interest, and the person entitled to any sporting interests. It is important that the owner or person entitled to any interest being purchased is identified because of the nature of the legislation. The mechanism of the legislation is such that the owner or person entitled to the interest must be identified in order to transfer the land to the crofting community body. Section 864 of the 2003 act provides for the completion of purchase by the crofting community body by way of the owner of the land or interest transferring title. Section 866 provides that if the owner or person entitled to the interest refuses or fails to effect the transfer, the land court may authorise its clerk to execute the deeds on their behalf. It is therefore essential to the process that the owner of the land or person entitled to the interest is identified. The procedure in the 2003 act is different from other compulsory purchase procedures, in which, if the land owner is unknown or cannot be found, the purchasing authority can declare title by way of a general vesting declaration, which is registered in the land register. The amendment also seeks to simplify the mapping requirements for crofting community bodies. Currently, the application from the ministers must prescribe in regulations must include provision that the crofting community is required to identify all rights and interests in the subjects of the application. Those are sewers, pipes, lines, watercourses or other condiments, fences, dykes, ditches or other boundaries in or on the land that are known to the applicant body or the existence of which they are on reasonable diligent inquiry capable of ascertaining. We consider that in some cases it could be particularly difficult for a crofting community body to identify all rights and interests. The amendment proposes to simplify the requirement by stating that the crofting community bodies must identify all rights and interests in the subjects of the application that are known to the crofting community bodies. We are proposing to remove that requirement to identify the sewers, the pipes, the lines, the watercourses, fences, dykes, ditches or other boundaries. We propose this amendment because we recognise that the current mapping requirements as being particularly complex and ministers will still set out the required information for the application in regulations, but it will no longer be required to include those interests that I have mentioned as being considered particularly difficult to identify. The amendment also amends the provisions relating to the public notice requirements in section 731 of the 2003 act. Currently, public notice of the application must be given by advertisement in such newspapers circulating in the area where the subjects of the application are situated, as ministers think appropriate, and in the Edinburgh Gazette. The amendment removes the requirements and replaces them with the powerful ministers to set out in regulations what the requirements for public notice will be. I would ask the committee to support those amendments and I move amendment 3. Does any member wish to comment? I think that I should say that, yes. Thank you very much, convener. I just had a couple of comments. On amendment 3, I just very much welcome that. I think that it makes it more straightforward and makes the legislation more likely to be able to be used, as intended. We are on section 5 as well, aren't we, at the moment? Or is that a separate one? No, hold off. Okay, indeed. I think that many people in the crofting communities through the experience of various buy-outs are very much in favour of the proposal that you have made. So minister, to wind up now? I am fine. No, indeed. So the question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Group 10, criteria for ministerial consent under part 3 of the 2003 act. I call amendment 4, in the name of the minister and the group of its own, minister to move and speak to amendment 4. To be in a section 74, the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003 sets out the criteria of which ministers must be satisfied before approving an application by a crofting community body to compulsorily purchase eligible croft land. Amendment 4 seeks to add to the conditions set out in section 74, 1 of the act, so that, in order to consent to an application under part 3, ministers must be satisfied that the owner, tenant, person entitled to sporting interests or curator in a standard security in relation to that land or interests are correctly identified in the application submitted by the crofting community body. That amendment ensures that all relevant parties are accurately identified during the application process, keeping it in line with amendment 3. That will ensure that all parties to the application are fully involved in the process and will be given the opportunity to comment on the application. That will ensure that ministers will have received all available evidence on which to make a decision on the crofting community right to buy application. As with amendment 3, it is important that the owner of any interest being purchased is identified because of the nature of the legislation. The mechanism of the legislation is such that the owner must be identified in order to transfer the land to the crofting community body. Section 86.4 of the 2003 act provides for the completion of purchase by the crofting community body by way of the owner of the land or interest transferring title. Section 86.6 provides that if the owner or person entitled to the interest refuses or fails to effect the transfer, the land court may authorise its clerk to execute the deeds on their behalf. It is therefore essential to the process that the owner of the land or person entitled to the interest is identified. That is different from other compulsory purchase legislation, in which the purchasing authority can register a general resting declaration in the land register to declare that it has title to the land. I invite the committee to support the amendment and I move amendment 4. Thank you. Do any members wish to comment? No members wish to comment, minister, to wind up? No. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Group 11 ballots under part 3 of the 2003 act to call amendment 5 in the name of the minister and a group of its own minister to move and speak to amendment 5. I propose amendment 5 to clarify that the crofting community body is required to meet the expense of conducting the ballot. However, the amendment also gives ministers the power to make regulations setting out circumstances in which a crofting community body can seek to recover the cost of running the ballot from the Scottish ministers in certain circumstances. Now, the reason that we do not propose to bring forward an amendment to the effect that ministers will pay for the cost of all ballots carried out under the crofting community body right to buy provisions is because, unlike in the procedure for the community right to buy under part 2 of the land reform Scotland act 2003, the ballot is the first indication of whether or not there is community support for the application in part 2. By the time the ballot takes place, the community body must already have indicated community support for the registration of their interest in the land. There is also the issue of the timing of the ballot. In part 2 of the 2003 act, it takes place after a community's application to register an interest has been approved. In part 3, it takes place before the application is received by the Scottish Government. That means that in part 3 ministers would not have had the opportunity to assess the application in any way before agreeing to pay for the ballot. Amendment 5 also seeks to give ministers the power to request further relevant information as they see fit from the crofting community body in relation to the ballot, including information relating to any consultation with those eligible to vote in the ballot. The information will assist ministers with the decision making in relation to the crofting community body's right to buy application. The amendments are in line with the proposed part 3A of the act. I urge the community to support amendment 5. Does any member wish to comment? Thank you very much, convener. It is just really to dig into why the crofting community has to pay for the ballot. I take the point that the legislation is slightly different, but I am wondering why you have not changed the legislation to make it the same to make it more straightforward. Could you clarify what the circumstances would be where the body could seek reimbursement? Would that, for example, be where there is a vote in favour of the proposal, but not against? Just so that people's expectations are absolutely clear when the legislation is put through? The ballot is done before the application, so somebody has to see that application before going forward in terms of the circumstances. Do you want to add anything on that? Advise the minister. Sorry, it has been a long morning. Given the fact that community support is there in terms of the community right to buy, that is obviously a very good reason for the Government to pay for that ballot. Okay. If that is so then, the question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We move to group 12 of an application by more than one crofting community body. I call amendment 6, the name of the minister and the group of its own minister to move and speak to amendment 6. Convener, when more than one crofting community body applies to purchase the same land or interests, only one application can proceed and all others are extinguished. I am proposing amendment 6 to ensure that when more than one crofting community body applies to buy the same land or interests, an application is extinguished that all persons invited to give views on the applications are notified that an application is extinguished. That is in line with the provisions of the proposed new part 3A of the 2003 act, and I have asked the community to support this amendment and I move amendment 6. Thank you. Any members wish to comment? Nobody wishes to comment. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Group 13 references to the Land Court under part 3 of the 2003 act, etc. I call amendment 7, and the name of the minister, group with amendment 10, minister to speak to amendment 7 and speak to both amendments in the group. Convener, the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003 specifies what persons connected to a crofting community right to buy application may refer a question to the Land Court before a decision is made on the application. Currently, section 81 of the 2003 act lists certain persons who have a right to refer a question to the Land Court at any time before ministers reach a decision on an application. Currently, the persons who have the right to refer are ministers, any person who has a member of the crofting community, any person who has an interest in the land or sporting interests, which are the subjects of the application giving rise to a right, which is legally enforceable by that person. With the subjects of the application is a tenants interest, any person who has an interest in the least being an interest giving rise to a right, which is legally enforceable by that person, or any person who is invited to send views to ministers on the application. The proposed amendment extends the list of persons who have a right to refer a question to the Land Court before ministers reach a decision on an application to include the owner of the land, which is a subject of the application, and the person entitled to any sporting interests that are a subject of that application. I propose amendment 7, because it extends the list of persons who may refer a question to the Land Court, and therefore ensures that all relevant parties are given the opportunity to submit a question to the Land Court. Amendment 10, the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003, currently requires that the Land Court must give reasons in writing for its decision on an appeal within four weeks of the hearing of the appeal. We are proposing to extend the four-week time limit for the Land Court's decision to eight weeks in order to provide the Land Court with greater flexibility when scheduling its cases. In addition to extending the time limit to eight weeks, the amendment also provides an option for the Land Court if it considers that it is not reasonable to issue a written statement of reasons within that eight-week time limit to notify the parties to the appeal of a new date by which it will issue its written reasons. I propose amendment 8 in order to provide greater flexibility for the Land Court when scheduling its workload, whilst at the same time ensuring that parties to the appeal have a degree of certainty as to when they will receive the written statement of reasons. Let's proposal aligns part 3 with proposed amendments to part 2 and the proposed part 3A of the 2003 act, and I would invite the committee to support this amendment and I move amendment 7. Does any member wish to comment? I would just like to make two comments. One, I just wonder if there is enough capacity in the Land Court, and I wonder whether the processes of the Land Court are simplified in any way so as to avoid the time that it takes to reply. Minister, to wind up and comment. W