Bologu'n rheinydd yma ar gyfer Y 11 raining in 2016 ar gyfer Y Rhym Ysgrifennu Rhywagol i'r Gweithdo Siwr a Gwun ei ddyn nhw. Can I remind everyone present to switch off their mobile phones? Apologies have been received by Jamie Greene and Mike Rumbles who will be, Mike Rumbles will be, turning up later, hopefully sooner rather than later. This morning, our first three agenda items relate to crofting, the first two strategoedd yn ôl gyffredin��wyr yn ddweud cymaenig o gyffredinwyr cilyrch wirserion, beton ni mater iTTL ond wedi iawn mentira letters o'r fitnessarch, lleigol ar gyfer plwyaf rhuniau aquring. A wedyn awr yd loveriaeth gynghorul ac yn eistedd munidag hefyd, outbreaks cyquiol traddwl am yr eigennym, ac afael y awrach dweud cy brickwyr ond mae yourong disease o'r ffaith oifrach iTARied, sgolwch, fathlosechfer iETARied am anhollion, euisaflamiaeth, Cyngor, Gordon Jackson, head of agricultural development and croftings for the Scottish Government, and Judith Brown, who is a solicitor acting on behalf of the Scottish Government. This instrument is laid under an affirmative procedure, which means that the Parliament must approve it before the provisions can come into force. Following this evidence session, the committee will be invited at the next agenda item to consider a motion to approve the instrument. Can I invite the cabinet secretary, please, to make an opening statement regarding this? Thank you, convener, and good morning to everyone. I'm pleased to be here this morning to support the committee's consideration of the draft crofting commission election Scotland amendment regulations 2016. These regulations are made by Scottish ministers in accordance with powers conferred by paragraph 7.1 of schedule 1 of the Crofter Scotland Act 1993. I'll provide a brief overview, if I may, and outline the reasons why the amendment regulations have been prepared. Thereafter, my officials, Gordon Jackson and Judith Brown and I will answer questions. Those regulations amend the Crofting Commission elections Scotland regulations 211, the principal regulations, which set out the arrangements under which elections to the Crofting Commission are conducted. Of course, a member of this committee, Stuart Stevenson, is the then Minister for Environment and Climate Change, who was responsible for the 2011 regulations. It's not that I mention that in any way to pass the buck, convener. The principal 211 regulations relate to candid eligibility, absent and proxy votes, the filling of vacancies, the retention of documents, election expenses and consequential amendments 2, and revocations of provisions of the principal regulations. I'll cover each, if I may, this quite a lot to cover, but I'll try and be as brief as possible. On candid eligibility, the 2011 regs set out the grounds on which a person is disqualified from being a candidate at an election. That includes disqualification where a person is found by the commission to be in breach of the residency duty, that's living within 32 kilometres of the croft, without having obtained consent from the Crofting Commission. The amending regulations add further grounds of disqualification from being a candidate. That applies to persons that the commission has decided are failing to comply with duties under the act to not misuse or neglect their croft and cultivate and maintain their croft. This places all three duties, residency, misuse and cultivation on an equal footing in terms of candidate eligibility to stand for an election. Second, with regard to absent and proxy votes, the regs allow voters to have their ballot paper sent to an address other than their registered address, the absent voters list. They also allow voters to have their ballot paper sent to a proxy, the proxy list. The regulations place a deadline on when a voter can make such arrangements. However, voters can also apply to be removed from the absent voters and proxy lists and the principal regs place no deadline on that. The amending regulations introduce a deadline and this is conveners to avoid scope for errors in the issuing of ballot papers. This new deadline provides the registration officer with a week in which to amend the crofting electoral register which it must apply to the returning officer not later than four weeks before the day of the count. The deadline is reflected in an amendment to the election timetable. On filling of vacancies, the only way that currently stands to select a replacement commissioner should an elected commissioner vacate their post partway through their elected term is for Scottish ministers to appoint a replacement. The amending regulations allow for the filling of vacancies that arise amongst elected members by candidates who pulled the next greatest number of votes behind the elected member. This process will be repeated until a person accepts the invitation or until the list of candidates is exhausted. If the list of candidates is exhausted then the Scottish ministers would then be able to make an appointment. The amending regulations also allow Scottish ministers to leave a vacancy unfilled in the case of a vacancy arising less than a year before the election providing the crofting commission remains coreate. On retention of documents, the amending regulations allow for the retention of certain documents for a period of five years. This is a consequential requirement of the new provision of filling vacancies. In order to operate, this requires certain information about the last election to remain available. On election expenses, the amending regulations increase the 211 limit from £6 to £700 and require all candidates to make a declaration of all payments made and present all relevant bills and receipts. On consequential amendments, et cetera, the amending regs include a number of minor amendments consequential to other changes. They revoke to provisions that were included in the principal regulations in error. Regulation 112 of the principal regulations is revoked to make clear that non-business days should not be discounted from the election timetable when referring to periods of weeks making the election timetable clearer to the reader. Regulation 49 of the principal regulations is also revoked, as that is referred to information relevant to the single transferable vote system, whereas the crofting commission elections operate under the alternative vote system. I can confirm a public consultation and propose changes to election arrangements took place convener from 18 March to 22 June this year. The consultation paper responses and the analysis report have been published on the Scottish Government website. On impact assessments, I can confirm that an equality impact assessment has been completed and no equality impact issues were identified. Lastly, in terms of financial impact, no business and regulatory impact assessment has been prepared as no impact upon business, public bodies or the third sector is foreseen. In conclusion, I apologise for the length of the opening statement but sought to cover a number of disparate aspects of the proposed regulations. I commend the amendment regulations and, of course, I will be pleased to try to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I will go to Stuart Stevenson first if I may. Thank you. It is just a technical question, which I think might be useful for future reference to get the answer on the record. In looking at the filling of vacancies among elected members section 10 in the order, which refers to 54A in the original order, at four, there are talks of the person who would be qualified to be a candidate at an election under regulation 9. Just for clarity, I am assuming, but the order seems to be silent, that the qualification relates to the point, the date on which the vacancy occurs, rather than them being qualified originally. It would perhaps be helpful to confirm that, since presumably they would have been qualified at the original date in any event, otherwise they could not have been stood. In other words, they would have to remain qualified through to that point. Yes, that is correct. If at the time of giving the invitation, they remain qualified, yes. So that is the relevant day plus? Yes, that is correct. I am a bit concerned about replacing someone who was elected by the next person with the next highest amount of votes. We are all aware that, quite often, you may have a couple of people standing, one will win by a country mile and the other person gets no support. I would be concerned if they were elected at that point, having little or no support. Especially when the cabinet secretary said that they will go through the list to probably the person who has pulled the least number of votes. That is not very democratic if that person is there with no support. I suppose that one could draw a comparison with the elections to this Parliament in the event of the by-elections of a list to MSP, but that is perhaps a mischievous reflection. Instead of giving that as an answer, I will pass to Judith Brown, if I may, if I'm free. It's not the same. They're not on a list. It perhaps is to look at the schedule to the Crofter Scotland Act 1993. Schedule 1 was introduced by the 2010 act. Paragraph 6 sets out the arrangements where an elected member ceases to hold office. It provides that Scottish ministers may appoint a member where the member who has left is not replaced by a person such as mentioned in sub-paragraph 4. Sub-paragraph 4 then goes on to say that the person who would normally fill the vacancy is the person who was a candidate in the election by virtue of which the elected member held office and who pulled at that election fewer votes than the elected member, and who, by virtue of regulations made under Paragraph 7 of the schedule, may hold office as a member of the commission. It was Parliament's intention at the time that those provisions were passed that the way in which vacancies should be filled amongst elected members was from people who had stood at election who had pulled fewer votes rather than, for instance, from a by-election. It's simply that those provisions are to give effect to that intention of Parliament's. I'm concerned about it, but, as you say, that's in the legislation. I think that we maybe need—that just adds to the long list of things that's maybe wrong with the legislation. It's a very reasonable point that Rhoda Grant makes. I think that it's one that we can all recognise, but I think that the point that Judith Brown is very helpful and clearly made is that the 1993 act as amended indicates that the intended process for filling vacancies was not through by-elections but through the process now included in those regulations. If that is correct and I have no reason to doubt the advice from our legal adviser, then I think that it is really up to this Parliament now to implement the will as expressed in the law as passed by previous Parliaments. Of course, if, in due course, we come on to discuss the reform of the law, then, as the member has just indicated, she raises a very fair point—I do not doubt that at all—then, to be serious, it is something that would be a very legitimate area for debate. I have a question, cabinet secretary. Are you aware if any of the changes to the election criteria for the commissioners will mean that any of the current commissioners are disbarred from standing again? I am not so aware and, in any event, that is not something on which I think I would be likely to opine unless I were in possession of very, very clear evidence because it would be quite a significant comment to make. I am not so aware—I do not know if my officials have any—anything further to add? I wonder if they could just add, and it is a question that occurred to me earlier in one of which I have not had the opportunity to reflect in detail. We have heard from the opening statement that the amending regulations add grounds, namely not misuse or neglect, cultivate and maintain the croft. Where the commission has decided that such persons are failing to fulfil those duties, they would be disqualified. Are officials aware whether there have been any persons that the commission has decided to fall into those categories or not? I am not aware of any current cases that are on-going. The commission has made a decision that Ebreach has occurred. My second question is a general question in the sense that the cabinet secretary will understand that the committee has been looking at crofting issues and will continue to look at crofting issues during the course of this morning. I wondered if, as a result of that and as a result of the information gathering that the cabinet secretary is undertaking separate to the committee, there is a decision to change completely crofting law, whether those elections will hinder his ability to do so. I would like some assurance that that would not be the case if that was the decision and the decision of this Parliament. I think that I can offer that assurance. Plainly, it is the duty of Parliament to consider any question of law reform. We do so on the basis that we have a crofting commission that performs regulatory functions that are required to be carried out under the existing system. Plainly, the commission needs to continue to function and operate, and it is correct that we make proper provision for it so to do. The elections take place in March next year for five-year elected appointments. That takes us through to 2022. We will go on to discuss the early stage and the high-level issues relating to crofting reform, but it is fair to say that that process, quite properly, should not be rushed and will take quite a long time. Therefore, we need, obviously, to have a functioning crofting commission. Therefore, I can give the assurance that the decisions that we make today will in no way impede or impair the rights and responsibilities of this Parliament and members of this Parliament. I would like to thank the cabinet secretary and his officials for giving the evidence that they have to the committee. I would like to move on to agenda item 2, if I may. The second agenda item is the formal consideration of motion S5M-02263, calling for the committee to recommend approval of the draft crofting commission, election Scotland amendments regulations 2016. I invite the cabinet secretary to speak and to move motion S5M-02263. I commend those regulations to the committee. Do any members have any further questions or comments? The question is to the committee that motion S5M-02263, in the name of Fergus Ewing, be approved. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes consideration of this affirmative instrument and we will port the outcome of our consideration to Parliament. I will now briefly suspend the meeting to allow the witness panel to be reconfigured. The third item on our agenda item is our final evidence session regarding the review of legislative priorities for crofting. The cabinet secretary and Gordon Jackson are now joined by Michael O'Neill, the Scottish Government's crofting bill team leader. As I have mentioned in previous meetings, the committee is particularly conscious that there have been some contentious crofting issues in the media in recent weeks. However, the committee does not intend to stray into those specific areas. I urge committee members and witnesses to focus on the legislative priorities, please. Can I invite the cabinet secretary to make a short opening statement? Many thanks for the opportunity to discuss the matters relating to the future of crofting legislation. In recent months, I have met a number of stakeholders and in each case have been hugely impressed by the enthusiasm that they display and the sense that so much can be achieved if everyone is pulling in the same direction. I would like the process of modernising crofting laws to bring people together and for them to take the opportunity presented to work constructively for the future good of crofting. The Scottish Government is committed to crofting and committed to support for crofting. That support is wide-ranging, including CAGs grants, CAP payments, SRDP, pillar 2 grants and ELFAS and others. We have made commitments that we intend to deliver during this Parliament. Those are the introduction of a new entrance scheme for crofting, the development of a national development plan for crofting, to explore whether we can create new woodland crofts, the reintroduction of a croft house loan scheme, ensuring new community landowners are not left out of pocket due to registering as the new landlord of crofts within their community owned estates and reforming crofting law. If the committee and members have any ideas, then we are very grateful for them and keen indeed to hear them individually and collectively. Turning to crofting law reform, this is the topic of the day. We understand that crofters have long been concerned at overly complicated and outdated legislation, so we want to modernise crofting law to make it more transparent, understandable and workable in practice. A lot has changed since crofting law came into force in 1886. Some arguments are very outdated and it is time for a clean slate approach to be taken, convener, to ensure that the law best serves crofting in the 21st century. Others argue that we should sort out all the problems, reconcile all the nuances and consolidate but leave the basic components as they are. Others still think that a hybrid approach should be taken. I know that much good work has already been done through the Shucksmith report and in relation to the creation of the crofting law sump, so called. It is important that we use this work to inform that work and what we will be undertaking in relation to developing new law. Whatever the approach, we need to think strategically about what we want from crofting and what we want to expect from new legislation. We need to be clear at the outset what we want crofting to deliver, so being clear about the role of crofting in Scotland and the vision that we have for it will be key. I want the new law that is developed to be fit for meeting crofting needs in the future. In thinking about that future, we must consider many issues such as the flexibility to cater for new entrants or that crofts need not be thought of in any way as hobby farms but thriving rural businesses as well as productive agricultural units. It is important that we are clear why we need change, what change we want to see and how we plan to achieve that, bearing in mind that creating new legislation might not be the only way to do that. It is essential that stakeholders engage in helping the Scottish Government with the development of new legislation. Indeed, I have been pleased to meet, thus far, many of the stakeholders. There are more meetings that I will be keen to do with individuals who have a profound knowledge and experience of crofting as well as organisations, representative bodies, statutory bodies and others. All that work is to ensure that we are in the best position to create the right environment in which crofters and communities can further contribute to successful rural Scotland. Crofting legislation is important and we need to get it right. It is an essential part of our history and our culture. For me, to wind up a move towards a conclusion, it is crucial that we take the time to do that, to do it properly. I have my own views and policy objectives, but those are not set in stone. I no doubt have your questions this morning and the role of the committee will help us all to develop our thinking in that regard. I want the process of creating new law to be an open one and I am keen, very keen and determined that others outwith that place engage so that their views are clear and can be considered in the work that is undertaken. We are here a long way from the crofting counties by geography and perhaps in many other ways too. I know that, from my own experience in government, the best solutions are arrived at collaboratively and after a great deal of thought and discussion. It is in that spirit of co-operation, convener, that I would wish to take the future of crofting law forward. Cabinet Secretary, thank you for those opening remarks. I think that a lot of what you said reflects the keenness that this committee has in taking crofting forward and making it fit for purpose and to serve the aspirations of those involved and also for those people within Scotland. I think that the first question on that is going to be on a direct statement that you made, and that is from Peter. Thank you, convener, and good morning, cabinet secretary. My question is a very basic question. It is right to the heart of the matter. We have been taking the evidence from various witnesses and we have had various ideas as to what crofting is all about. Is it about population retention? Is it about farming? Is it about housing? Is it about something else? We believe that any legislation that covers crofting should be underpinned by a clear policy on what the Scottish Government expects crofting to deliver. My question is, what does the cabinet secretary consider the purpose of crofting to be in the 21st century? Crofting serves many purposes. To think of it as requiring only one purpose is not the way that I would urge people to think about crofting. It serves and indeed fulfills many purposes, convener, and perhaps that is a good starting point that Mr Chapman has raised in order to allow us to think of the various roles and purposes that it fulfills. For example, crofting undoubtedly contributes towards population retention. It also contributes towards the sustainability of rural and remote communities. Communities where, as members know especially those representing crofting counties areas in the Highlands, there tend to be fewer opportunities than in cities, for example. Fewer opportunities to get jobs, fewer opportunities to set up businesses, perhaps a lesser likelihood of being connected to the internet. Connectivity is never far away from any debate, and rightly so these days. Population retention, sustainability of remote and rural communities, of course, and a very basic level of crofting activity for a great many thousands of people, provides a supplement to family income. I think that it is perhaps reasonable to say that that income is unlikely to be the sole income in almost all cases, I would suggest. Perhaps not all, but most cases of crofting now, where there is crofting in terms of agriculture activity carried out. The income may supplement work that is done as a main job or self-employment. I think that I am right in saying, for example, that when I met Stuart Robertson in the arped office in Stornoway that I visited when I was in holiday this year, I do tend to have lots of bustman's holidays that he was able to inform me that the largest payment in terms of finance to a crofter of which he was aware under the basic scheme was £22,000. Now, compared to, I think, many members may be aware in this room that that would not be an enormous payment to many farmers. I think that I just make the point that there is a purpose, of course, to provide an income, but that very often will be a very modest income indeed, very modest income. Nonetheless, it is an income and perhaps it provides that difference between a subsistence existence and perhaps just providing a little bit more comfort and opportunity. It also contributes towards agriculture. It also contributes towards society and the cohesion of society. Therefore, I have mentioned some purposes, but I hope that members will see that crofting is not one thing. It is not about one thing. It does not have a sole purpose. Perhaps for that reason, as well as many others, it is very important that we continue to support it in the work that we do in this Parliament. Cabinet Secretary, thank you for the full answer. I am going to warn you just slightly if I may that there are a huge amount of questions. We do not want to miss any of the replies that you get. I would ask you and indeed members of the committee to make sure that their questions are as focused as possible. On that basis, I am going to go to the deputy convener, Gail, for the next question. Thank you, point taken. Good morning, cabinet secretary. Thank you for your time this morning. As you know, the function to develop crofting currently sits with Highlands and Islands Enterprise. How effective do you think that this is? What is your opinion on the development function sitting alongside the regulation function in the Crofting Commission? I think that HIE is well placed to perform its development role, not least because, unlike Scottish Enterprise, as members know, it has a social function as well as an economic duty. Therefore, it does differ in its statutory duties, but also in the way that it approaches its task. From the knowledge that I have of individuals who work for HIE, I think that there is an affinity for crofting, an understanding of crofting and therefore an ability to be responsive in many cases. Of course, HIE tends to deal with perhaps the larger business enterprise, business gateway exists to deal with less so, so they both play a part. I think that the Crofting Commission is effectively and substantially primarily a regulatory body and it does not have the budget to be a development body. It is important to remember that it is not just about which organisation has the duty, but about what is the budget to fulfil that duty. Therefore, the two issues must be considered together. I am aware from my own knowledge that HIE is working intensively with around 50 communities in its most fragile area, and I support that. I will finish by saying that when the Crofting Reform Scotland Act 2010 was introduced, a conscious decision was taken to remove the development and grant-giving functions carried out by the Crofters Commission, the predecessor body, from the range of functions transferred to the commission. The Scottish Government, through our pit administers, for example, the Croft House grant, the CAGS scheme, support for new entrants, Agri environment, Crofting Cattle Improvement scheme, and indeed I have been able to involve myself in many of those decisions that are taken fairly swiftly and reasonably efficiently, as far as I can see. Although, if others take a different view about how well we perform those functions, I would be very keen to hear that. I think that it is a perfectly legitimate area for debate and I would welcome the committee's thoughts once it has explored this issue with all the witnesses, as well as, I hope, listening to what I have had to say on the matter. Richard, I think that you have got a follow-up. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. Through HIEs, the Scottish Government's economic and community development agencies, supporting businesses, strengthening communities, basically has done a tremendous job in the last 30-40 years. Young crofters are people who want to get into crofting, go to a bank and ask for a loan, and the bank says no because they do not have title or whatever over the land. Do you believe, as I do, that HIEs should get involved in small loans to people in order to encourage and develop crofting? I think that the question of access to affordable housing is a key issue, and part of that issue is access to secured loan finance to mortgages to use the—I still think of it as the English term—heritable securities, the Scots law term, but mortgages wins the day, I suspect. There is perhaps an unfairness that arises through the vagaries of the crofting law. It is quite difficult to get a mortgage. You have to de-croft and even then it is difficult. It is difficult for practical reasons because many crofters have a seasonal income and therefore are not able to persuade a bank to our building society that they are a sufficient financial standing to qualify for a mortgage. It is difficult also because many of the houses that are built are self-built and it is traditionally difficult to secure a mortgage over that. However, the vagaries of the crofting law make it extremely difficult to get mortgages. I think that that is basically unfair. The process of de-crofting is one that does not exist for people out with the crofting counties. If those members here have bought a house, how would you feel about having to go to a regulatory body first to apply for permission to buy a house? If one thinks about it, it is a bit of an anomaly. It is one that I have raised with, for example, the Scottish Crofting Lawyers. I know that at least one of them has opined on various ways that this can be resolved. In fact, it was in the last legislation at stage 3, but it was removed at stage 3. I think that that is undoubtedly one of the key areas that we all need to consider very carefully indeed, because I think that as a matter of fundamental rights, it is unfair that people living in crofting land should find it so difficult to get access to a loan, to build or buy a house on the same terms as everybody else not in the crofting counties. Lastly, I do not particularly think that HIE has the role of sorting this out. It is for Parliament to sort this out, working with, for example, the Association of Clearing Banks. It is an issue—finally, convener, I am sorry to go on about this, but I have done a bit of work in this matter already. I have met most of the major banks in Scotland over the past week while. I have asked them all to consider this. I have asked them all to contribute towards the issue and the resolution of the issue, and I believe that they are all willing so to do. If we can tackle this working with everybody, because it is a controversial issue, loss of 10-year, security of 10-year is—after all, that is what the Napier Commission 1886 act was all about. It is not without controversy, but I hope that we can study it in detail and find options for solutions. Just going back to the role of HIE around crofting development rather than houses, but business development, I think that a lot of the evidence that we got was that they worked with crofting communities, but what was missing and what the Crofters Commission had provided in the past was individual business advice to individual crofters on how they could develop their business and increase their income. That seems to have disappeared to a large extent, and I am wondering whether there is a way of getting either HIE to do that or the crofting commission to do that. That is an interesting observation, and I would like to look closely at the evidential basis for that proposition. Across Scotland, the advice can always be improved to business or potential businesses, such as Newstart and so on. Plainly, the business gateway and not HIE will have in most cases that responsibility, just as it has in the rest of Scotland, where SE and Scottish Enterprise deal with larger businesses. I think that the responsibility is primarily with business gateway, but many crofters are in agricultural activity, and there are various sources of advice available to them. Mentoring, for example, available from the banks very often provide free of charge. Mentoring arranged through HIE, although that is for larger companies. We are providing finance to the SRUC, the rural college to Scotland's rural college, to provide advice. I would expect that to extend to crofters. I will check and make sure specifically that that does so in response to this question in relation to farm advisory service. There is a whole range of areas, potentially, where advice needs to be sought. However, I agree with the proposition that we need to be sure that appropriate advice is available to those who live and work in the crofting counties and who wish it. It is especially important that businesses should be nurtured and supported where possible and appropriate, and that the relevant sources of advice and mentoring should be available to them. Again, I think that this is an important area that the committee has raised. Cabinet Secretary, an issue that has been raised is about forming new crofts and giving new entrants the opportunity to do that, which forms under the development principles that HIE could do. One of the suggestions that we heard was that there should be some resumptions, especially on crofting estates that have been purchased by the community. There should be resumptions of some areas of common grazings to allow the formation of new crofts. Do you have a view on whether that would encourage more crofters and make more communities more vibrant, or do you think that that is a bad idea? We are committed to introducing a new entrance scheme for crofting, so we certainly welcome suggestions about how that can operate. The work has already begun within the crofting stakeholder forum. I think that you are aware, convener, to identify what a scheme might look like. We understand that a draft new entrance paper has been compiled, and that focuses strongly on making crofts available and on reintroducing the croft entrance scheme. As with all papers, the new entrance paper, once finalised, will be presented to Parliament in some shape or form. In the meantime, of course, crofters are eligible to apply for other new entrance schemes already, and funding is available through CAP, such as the Young Farmer Start-up Grant and the New Entrance Capital Grant scheme. I think that the proposal that you make is one that has certain controversy, but it should be the subject of consideration, and it will be something that we will look at carefully working with the committee in the possible new entrance scheme. John, do you want to go next? Okay. Thank you, convener. Morning, cabinet secretary. I would like to ask the cabinet secretary about the programme for government that commits to beginning work in the national development plan for crofting this year. We have heard various opinions on that, including from Sir Crispin. I argue that that might be challenging within the existing limitations of the act and other comments about no active crofting policy to develop new entrants and other issues that have touched on there from David Finlay. Are you able to advise, please, on the timescale for the production of the national development plan? Yes, a very fair question. The plan for Scotland, Scotland's programme for government, which was published a couple of months ago, makes it clear that we will engage with crofting stakeholders to start the process of drafting a new national development plan for crofting as part of a sustainable rural economy. That will focus on what we want from crofting in the future, rather than on what has gone on in the past. Although it goes without saying that pieces of work, such as the Shucksmith report and the crofting law sump, will indeed set a helpful context. We must use the benefits and the fruits of all the valuable work that has been done by great many people in the past. There will be further stakeholder engagement. That process has already commenced. The development plan will include a wide variety of measures to support new entrants, support for crofting housing, exploration of potential to create woodland crofts and ensuring that community-owned estates are not disadvantaged by the croft registration process. All of those things will be the topic of the plan, and we have therefore begun the process of delivery of that. As with all of those things, convener, I think that the process should be governed by the principle of not getting it right, not getting it out. We need to get this right. That is the priority. I think that we are all—this committee work will be a useful contribution to that process. However, it is far more important to have a plan that is right, that wins support, that commands buy-in and is deliverable and visionary but practical. It is far more important that we do that than to rush something out, which would be very easy to do but not the right approach. Who would be responsible for the implementation of the plan? The buck stops with me. I understand that your determination to get it right is entirely the right approach.  Can you give us an indication on the committee when that is? You have not done that yet, so I wonder if I can push you for some guidance on that. Obviously, we are talking about the national development plan, not the bill at the moment, but we have not set—in our manifesto, which is one of the pledges that we contained in it advisedly. Obviously, we did not set timescales in these because, I guess, the authors of the manifesto knew that it is a matter that needs to be the subject of careful thought. I have not set and I do not have in my brain a definite timescale, but I am always keen to make swift progress as swift as is possible. To answer your question directly, I would envisage that it will be possible within a reasonable period of time to set a target as to timing, because people want us to make progress. However, I am not planning to do so today, because I think that it is too early. We have not yet had the chance to hear views from crofters and representatives about precisely what they want to see in the plan. I have mentioned a series of things, but it could well be that the process of engagement may raise a whole other series of things. Many of them occur to me about more focus, perhaps, on potential areas of further diversification. Food and drink, tourism and renewable energy are all areas that are very, very important for many individual crofters. There may be a whole host of ideas, and I do not want to delimit and constrain the ability of the national development plan to be ambitious, bold and effective by the arbitrary setting prematurely of a timetable. I do want to make progress always swiftly, so I may give you a clearer answer at some point in the reasonably near future, if that is any consolation. Reasonable, relative, near. I am not sure that I am any clearer at the end of that, but I think that perhaps we will leave it at that stage at the moment. Stuart, unless anyone else has a question on the development plan. Stuart, I think that you have the next question. Thank you. I have a series of questions about the crofting commission itself. The first of which relates to the review of the crofting commission, and I just wonder if the cabinet secretary could tell us a little bit more about the objectives of that and any indications of the timetable and how the Government might deal with the outcomes from it. Yes, I think that I can. The review will consider the Crofting Commission board governance arrangements, the systems, procedures and support mechanisms that are in place under pain-effective decision making. It will give you regard to the three recent common grazing cases at Bohunton, Upper Coll and Mangastar, although not the decisions taken. The review will also examine arrangements that are in place to handle conflicts of interest. The work will be undertaken by business advisers and accountancy firm Scotman Creef. We expect to make the report of findings available early next year. The review will help to promote effective governance within the commission, and it is an opportunity to take stock and learn from experiences and examine positives as well as opportunities for improvement. We would expect the report with its findings to serve to inform the new board of the Crofting Commission convener following the elections in spring next year, and the Scottish Government will work with the commission through its normal sponsorship arrangements to ensure that due regard is given to the review outcomes. I am going to change the order of the next two questions in the light of what has just been said, but I will deal with them both. One of the issues that has arisen in evidence is related to delegated decision making and perhaps delegating directly to commissioners. You highlighted that one of the things that the review of the commission was looking at was things like conflict of interest, and perhaps that gives a context to the question. Do you think that the current processes of delegated decision making are actually working to the interests of both the commission and the crofting areas? We are supportive of the Crofting Commission's delegated decision making initiative. My officials inform me that that has been undertaken in parallel with the Crofting Commission board initiative to develop and implement regulatory policies that set the framework within which delegated decisions can be taken. That is good for Governments and the initiative improves organisational efficiency and effectiveness and frees up commissioners' time to work on more strategic matters. That can only be a good thing. Delegated decision making is sensible for many bodies and can work extremely well where the delegation is supervised and carried out effectively. For example, in local planning authorities, it is routinely and correctly used in order to free up the time of senior officials and members to look at the cases that warrant sufficient time and expense to be devoted. In general, I support delegated decision making, and I am told that it is working reasonably well. In relation to the elected members—and, of course, there are also appointed members—there appears to be attention from the evidence that we have had between the idea that elected members have to act on behalf of the whole commission or that they are simply there as delegates from their own constituencies. That is something that we are familiar with here as well. I wonder whether the system of elected commissioners, in dealing with the tension between those two, perhaps alternative duties that there are on commissioners, is working well, and perhaps related to that, how well do those who are appointed help those who are elected to take a corporate view rather than an individual one, which I am sure will be necessary from time to time? Those are matters of debate. Indeed, I discussed this very issue with my officials earlier this morning. Elected commissioners have the responsibility and are expected to bring their knowledge of crofting from their respective constituency areas and to use that knowledge better to inform board decisions on regulatory matters. The crofting commission, as I mentioned earlier, is fundamentally a regulatory body. If one thinks of that, that puts into sharp relief the potential conflict of interest of an elected commissioner, for example in representing one individual person in one individual case. I think that there is a fundamental debate here about the role of the elected commissioners, because each of us here would probably take the view, and I certainly do, that the job that we have is to represent all constituents, individuals, and to do so irrespective of their views, our views, their politics, our politics, their position, their standing, to represent everyone. Therefore, it would be, I think, a matter of common view that someone who is elected should represent those who elected him or her. However, in a regulatory body, such as the commission, the purpose is to effect and carry out and implement regulations. I think that this is a very important area for debate and perhaps a potentially reform of the law in due course. I would be very interested to hear the committee's views after it is a chance to reflect on what I have said, but also what has been said by others in evidence in this regard. It is not an easy task, I think, for an elected commissioner. To take that back to where I started, this is essentially part of the review of the Crofting Commission, cabinet secretary. It should be something that the committee considers. If it wishes to, in the sense that it is a legitimate and important area of debate, what is the duty of an elected commissioner of the Crofting Commission? Is it to individuals or is it to the area and is it to bring knowledge and expertise to the board or is it to opine lobby to put forward the case of individuals? I am not prescribing any of those views, but it does appear to me, having had some thought about this, that there are potential areas of reform in relation to the proposed legislation. John Swinney, I think that you are up with the next question. Thanks, convener. As the cabinet secretary probably knows, my constituency does not cover many crafts, so I am learning as we go along. My questions are on the kind of area of costs and administration and to start with having to register a croft. The point that has been made to is that there are considerable costs involved in registering a croft. In particular, there are always adverts in newspapers, which some people question as being a little bit out of date and can be quite expensive. There seem to be often legal costs and other costs in the whole registration process. We had some witnesses suggesting that that is an area that there could be a bit of modernisation and perhaps simplification on. I do not know if you have any thoughts on that. I think that it is another good point that has been raised by your committee members today. There are costs involved. The costs are incurred in maintaining the register, which is free to search online. The fee for registering or updating a croft is £90. That fee is based on the common principle of public finance, namely cost recovery. It remains the same since the register commenced on 30 November 2012, and Scottish ministers recently announced that the fees charged by registers of Scotland will remain the same. In terms of potential cost savings, the 2.10 act provides that, in most cases, the applicant for first registration of a croft must, on receipt of the certificate, give public notice of registration by placing an advertisement for two consecutive weeks in a local newspaper circulating in the area where the croft is situated. That requirement has been the subject to much criticism as the cost of advertising, as Mr Mason rightly raised, is not inconsiderable. As part of the regulatory review process, we will explore options for removing or reducing costs in this area, possibly through use of some form of web-based notification system. That needs to be considered carefully, but the member has raised a very valid point indeed, to which I have a degree of sympathy. That is great. Secondly, there is the whole question of mapping common grazings. I am not entirely clear, but it was suggested to us that, in the past, there was specific funding or budget given to the Crofting Commission to carry out mapping of common grazings, and that is no longer the case. That appears to be the reason for not carrying out mappings of common grazings at the present time. I wonder if you can confirm if that is also your understanding, or if you were expecting the Crofting Commission to carry on this kind of work within their existing budget? I think that there is no funding withdrawn. The Scottish Government provided the commission with an additional £400,000 over the four-year period from 2012-13 and 2015-16. At the outset, that was expected to be sufficient to facilitate registration of all the common grazings. That is about 1,000 common grazings. The task proved more challenging than first anticipated. Despite the Crofting Commission adding significant levels of resource from its own budget, it was only able to register around 300 common grazings. That equates to around £1,300 per grazing without taking into account resources above the £400,000 budget that was invested by the Crofting Commission. It is likely that registering grazings committees without a committee in office around 500 will be more resource intensive. Any decision on whether to devote resources from within its existing budget allocation to continue with common grazings registration would be for the Crofting Commission to make and would need to be balanced against the other responsibilities of the organisation, such as processing regulatory applications, tackling absenteeism and administering the annual crofting census. It illustrates the importance of the Government's review that we are carrying out and the importance of ensuring that delegated work is carried out, in some cases, to allow the body to operate as efficiently as possible. It is a very important area that has been identified and I hope that I have given the full factual detail of the situation at the moment, if not a perfect solution to the problem. However, it is one that we are looking at and is important. You said that there is a Government's review and, of course, that could throw up a lot of different things that I imagine. However, if there were 400,000 specifically over four years in the past, there is no plan to repeat that. I will have 400,000 to move it on. The way in which to continue the work should be considered by the new Crofting Commission following the election next year—a perfect legitimate topic for the process of elections, of course. It is one that we will need to discuss with the Crofting Commission as to how we achieve a task that we all wish to carry out effectively and swiftly. Of course, the registration process is not alone. It is not only the crofting counties where there is much work to be done in completing registers. The land register, of course, as members will know, has been converted to map-based land certificates as part of the register of season. I think that most people would see that those things are matters that are progressed but cannot be done overnight. It is in the nature of the beast that this work must be done with great care and meticulous attention to detail, otherwise it is of no purpose. I think that we have heard, as a committee, the importance of making sure that the system is map-based, and the point that John raised and you have answered on has been reflected in the answers that we have had from previous witnesses. However, there is definitely a call from all the witnesses that we have had across all the bodies that they need more money to do the registration of crofts. I guess that with the budget coming up, I would wonder if you, Cabinet Secretary, have made a plea for some extra money to allow the registration to be carried forward over the next couple of years to get it right. Well, I think that, as members will be aware, there is huge pressures on the budget from many, many sources. What I undertake is that I will communicate with the commission in order to explore how best we ensure that we all fulfil the functions that rest upon us. John, you want to follow up as well? Yes, my final point, really on this area of administration and so on in the register, is that I understand that to appeal against something in the register, one has to go to the land court. It has been suggested—we have had slightly different evidence, I think, from witnesses, because it has been suggested that a mediation service might be helpful and that that would save having to go to court and resolving disputes in that way, which presumably can be expensive. On the other hand, we were told by one witness that actually the land court is quite a friendly court. You do not have to have a lawyer and so it is not such a bad process. I just wonder if you feel there is a need for mediation or if you feel that the land court process is sufficient. I am just amused that they observe the phrase friendly court, but let me pass to Michael O'Neill for an answer on this one, if I may. In looking at the changes in crofting law going forward, I think that it is something that should be pursued in those considerations, because mediation may be a useful tool in settling disagreements. So far, there have been, I think, around 44 challenges of croft registration and common gracious registration combined out of about 3,500 registrations. It is my understanding, certainly, that most of those cases are considered by the Scottish Land Court and that has done swiftly. The process is not intended to require any specialist legal representation, so that should hopefully reduce costs to crofters. There may still be people who are hesitant to take a challenge to court, but in fact that may be a suggesting that the current system is functioning well and that the vast majority of cases over boundary disagreements are resolved prior to registration. So I think that if mediation were to be progressed, we would need to consider the financial implications with that and the risks that there would still be challenges that would likely end up in the Land Court. In fact, you are almost saying that there could actually be extra costs if we brought in an extra layer? That is potentially yes. Just add to the context here that there has been 44 challenges, as far as we know so far, that amounts to 1 per cent of the cases. It is relatively small, which suggests that in most cases amicable agreements are being reached. I suppose that my only comment on that would be that, at the point that has already been made by Mr O'Neill, that, as soon as you mentioned the word court, some people back off whether they feel they are right or they are wrong, but I accept that none of us know that at the moment. Mary, I think that you have got it. Yes, thank you, convener. I think that one of the questions that I was going to ask you actually touched on in your answer earlier, and it was really about access to mortgages for crofts. The other question that I have relates to absenteeism and neglect, obviously we have heard from quite a few witnesses already, and it was just really to get your thoughts on the provisions in crofting law that deal with absenteeism and neglect. One of the witnesses that we had described it as the underlying principle is simple, but the process is anything but, and it would just be really to hear your thoughts on that in those provisions. Yes, I would say that the characterisation that you have given is one that might be shared by many people. I mean, I think that we all accept that the underlying principle is simple, but the process is anything but. In terms of absenteeism and neglect, the current legislation does have the means to deal with these issues, although some regard the process for dealing with any breach of a crofter's duty on an ad hoc basis has been cumbersome and long, and does not necessarily improve the overall situation in an individual community. I believe that the commission is trying to move out of focusses and issues of this nature to the idea of geographically based regulatory work where they operate within a particular community at the community's request to address issues concerned, including breach of duties. In regards to new legislation, clearly the absenteeism issue and neglect issue will need to be considered and the most appropriate way to deal with them thought through, so these are very sensitive, very sensitive issues indeed, community. They are about people's lives, and very often those who absenteeism or croft have a very strong affinity for the croft, and indeed they have to leave places like the Western Isles to go to Glasgow to work in the police force or the NHS, and all of us will probably know a great many people who have a real affinity for the croft, and I'm very, very conscious of that, and therefore the need to deal with these matters very sensitively, I hope, is one that would be seen by all of us as appropriate. Absolutely, and that's what I would say. I mean some of the evidence that we heard, we've heard the young crofters in talking about how important it is to get young people and to get new entrants into crofting as well, so I think the points that you touched on earlier in terms of mortgages were important, and I was glad to hear about the conversations that you'd had with the banks because I think that that is the big stumbling block and I think it would be useful for us to pursue more information on that as well and to look further into that because I think that they'll play an integral role in that situation. The committee was felt appropriate to involve the banks, I think that that would be a very welcome intervention if that was seen as appropriate by the committee. One of the issues that was mentioned was the common grazing committees having to do annual reports on crofting and submit them back to cover things like absenteeism and neglect, and some of the common grazing committees I think find that particularly difficult area to deal with. Indeed, I'm not aware that the majority of the common grazing committee actually submit a report. Do you think that there's a better way of dealing with that in relation to this incident? Can I maybe ask Mr Jackson to deal with this? Do you support his clarification? The 2010 act required common grazing committees to report at the earliest opportunity, but thereafter every five years and not every every year. However, it is a challenging area, obviously, because the committees might perceive that they're interfering with day-to-day crofters' business within the crofting communities, but nevertheless it is a primary legislative requirement for them to do so. Can I ask Mr Jackson how many have actually been submitted on your reports? The crofting commission has recently encouraged common grazing committees to come forward. They haven't done so as yet. I understand that the crofting commission is asking people to come forward. Do you have a figure of the amount that has actually submitted reports? If not, would it be possible for you to submit that to the committee in writing post this session? As far as I'm aware, no committees have yet reported. No committees have reported, despite the fact that it was instigated in the 2010 act. That's correct, yes. That might be something that the committee should be looking at more closely in relation to the future of crofting. I would certainly agree with that, yes. The next question is Richard. I entirely support crofting. It's part of the integral part of the Highlands and of Scotland. In 1883, this act has been on for 133 years, but it was amended 22 times. Prior to that, it was layered and then it was a crofter, but in 2010 we changed it to owner occupiers. Does the cabinet secretary agree with witnesses that the provision of the 2010 act on owner occupiers are complex, inconsistent, have proven difficult to apply, and do you intend to consider future legislative changes to that? Well, I'm no legal expert, but I was fortunate to have a very interesting lengthy discussion with the Crofting Lawyers Group. Indeed, many of their members are extremely experienced and well informed, and I do think that the issue of the crofting law on owner occupiers are extremely complex. It's been raised in the Crofting Law Sump by members of the Crofting Law Group, and there have been calls for a simpler definition of a crofter. I think it's important that new legislation does address this, and I'm open to suggestions on the issue as part of the considerations for new legislation. I do think that one should go back to the discussion that we had earlier, convener, about what we are trying to achieve. I think that there is a case for consideration that what we should be trying to achieve is to remove impediments for people obtaining affordable housing or any housing access to a mortgage. Those are issues that I think we would all, I hope, want to see progress made on, given the complexities that make some of those obvious, clear, simple, desirable social aims easier to achieve in the Crofting Counties as they are in other parts of Scotland. I think that the purpose should be the driver in the work that we do in relation to legal definitions, but it certainly requires to be simplified, so I would support the thrust of what Mr Lyle says. We should always remember that the 1886 Act came from the struggle of crofters in places like the Burner of Riots and the Battle of the Brays in 1874 and about 10 years thereafter. It was only, if I may say so, convener, the activism against the landlords of the time that brought that security of tenure following the Napier Commission. Those are not matters of history, they are strongly felt in the Crofting Counties as still today, so we need to proceed, I think, with clear objectives, but to do so with one eye on the history. Can I totally agree with the last points that you have made? I am a lowlander and I am starting to learn about crofting and getting very interested in it. The evidence to the committee so far has shown that owner-occupiers are in two camps. One who occupies a croft should be considered a crofter and be subject to the same rights and responsibilities, and then we have other owner-occupiers who should not be considered crofters and should not be subject to crofting regulations. Do you have a view on any of those opinions? Well, I am aware that there are two views and this is, I think, again a matter for legitimate to be unnecessary. I think that it would be impossible to approach the task that we have of crofting law without looking at those issues at a high level, but perhaps I could ask Mr Neil to answer the question from more of a technical point of view. I think that it is a very interesting question and I think that it is one that will attract quite differing views among stakeholders and has the potential to potentially polarise opinions. At the moment, given where we are in terms of thinking about new legislation, it is really too early to say that there is a firm view on this. There is a case to be made either way and I think that people should feel free to make their views heard as we go forward so that each case committee will consider it on its merits. Richard Ewing, are you happy? John Lennon, I think that yours is the next question. Thanks, convener. Common grazing has been mentioned before. The whole question of grazing committees has been some suggestion. Some people seem to feel that they are working, they are quite happy with them, and other people feel that they really need to be upgraded because a lot more things are being done with common ground than maybe used to be the case. I was interested looking back at the Sharksmith report where it says that a community-level grazing committees should be modernised to become crofting township development committees with a broader remit and more inclusive membership. The suggestion has been that now with wind turbines perhaps appearing or could appear on common grazing and perhaps other ways of using the land that there needs to be updating of grazing committees. I wonder if you have a view on that. I do think that there is a very strong case for updating the role of grazing committees. That was a topic that was raised at the crofting lawyers, particularly by Sir Crispin Agnew, who may well have shared his thoughts with you on that. The point is that grazing committees were very much a creature of their time and prescribed us an appropriate method of ensuring that the common elements of crofting were properly organised in a world where crofting was the norm, was the fundamental way of life and existence. As Mr Mason has pointed out, things have changed substantially since then, but the role, definition of crofting of grazing committees and duties and functions in an organisation has not been updated with it. I think that the law reform should involve examination of the potential for grazing committees or their future equivalents to take on business development or community development company type roles. At present, it has the remit prescribed in statute to set out in sections 48 to 50b of the 93 act that I am told. I think that there may be a desire for grazing committees to assume a wider role, and that would be a need to look at in the context of legislation. By just finishing by saying that I am keen to stress for those who are reading this official report that the vast majority of grazing committees function well, and our staff are operated by people who give their time freely and voluntarily pro bono, and we recognise and value that work. Continuing on the theme of common grazing, the issue has been raised with us about a deemed croft in common grazing, and, as I understand it, sometimes that may just be marked by an X on the map of the common grazing. The whole question has been raised as to whether there is a conflict here, perhaps between guidance and what is eligible in an IACS form. I think that that is probably quite a complex area, but I am not sure… Last, Mr Jackson, if we can… It is a complex area, but the top-line answer is relatively simple. The Scottish Government can see nothing to prevent common grazing committees applying for funding under SRDP, and, furthermore, it can see nothing through the IACS rules themselves. Nothing in that suggests that land, subject to common grazing rights, is in itself precluded under IACS, so that is the position that is taken by the Scottish Government in the matter. So there is not really any change needed as far as you are concerned? No. Thank you. Can I follow up on that, please, cabinet secretary? I do not know who is the appropriate person to answer. I am sure that you will decide. However, one of the questions that we have had is that common grazing and shares in the common grazing can be separated from the croft, to the extent that people, when they sell their croft, retain their common grazing shares and do not actually use them. Some people have suggested that that prevents new entrants getting a share in the common grazing, and it also means, as has been suggested by some witnesses, that those people with shares in the common grazing but are not active crofters are able to benefit from any income that the common grazing achieves. Can you give the committee a view of whether you think that that is a problem, and, if so, what you think should happen about it? I think that I have passed to Mr Jackson on this, who I know has looked at this particular issue. We do not actually have figures available, but anecdotal evidence does suggest that common grazing in a number of cases are underutilised, that people who have shares are not utilising them, and that there is a missed opportunity. I think that this is an area that has already been recognised by the committee. It needs to be looked at within the context of crofting law reform, and how things are actually progressing in that particular area, because it is a missed opportunity. It is an opportunity, in particular, for new entrants, and it is something that is very important. I understand that, Mr Jackson. You are suggesting that you accept entirely that it is a problem. As a farmer, I would say that we have rightly got rid of the slipper farming cases, but there may be slipper crofters in some—we have got rid of a lot of them, I see the cabinet secretary shaking his head—but we have a situation where a shareholder in the common grazings may be taking income, which he or she is entitled to, from the common grazings, but doing no activity. Is that correct? Not to my knowledge, the concept of active farmer still applies, and it is an area-based payment depending on active use. I understand that there is an opportunity for those shareholders who do not actually utilise the common grazings to enter into an agreement where the summing is passed over to somebody else who can actually use it. I am just going to push you, if I may, just a wee bit on that, on the fact that you have said that there is no reason why a common grazings committee cannot claim for a payment. Indeed, the common grazings committee will get payments for resumptions and any use on the common grazings for wind farms. On the basis that we have been told that they are not allowed to hold money, and that money belongs to the shareholders of the common grazings, and they have to pay out that money if it is not being used to improve the common grazings. They could actually be taking an income from the common grazings, but not contributing to it. Is that correct, Mr Jackson? My understanding of the legislative provisions is that, in the case of resumption, resumption moneys go via the constable and should be distributed timeously to shareholders, it should not in actual fact go to common grazings committees. Payments, furthermore, payments for use of the common grazings—pillar 1 payments—under the cap should go to the shareholders and not to the common grazings committee itself. A shareholder with shares in the common grazings but no croft could be capable of taking that money that is being paid under a grant scheme? It is slightly complex. In that particular scenario, you describe that it is time to be a deemed croft, so it is a croft for all intents and purposes, and if the shareholder is utilising the common grazing, then there would be entitlement to cut payments. I am just going to make an observation if I may, but it is unlikely if he has got a deemed croft in the common grazing that, if he does not have in-byland, he would necessarily be using the common grazings because there would be nowhere to overwinter the stop. I am going to push on with Peter on the question. Another issue about the common grazings. We have heard that there is a real pressure for young new intents to get into crofting, and it is very difficult for them to get a start for various reasons. However, one of the suggestions was that there are thousands of acres of common grazings under utilised. Why cannot we just take some of that land and create new crofts for new young keen folk to get into the crofting system? That is it. I think that this may have been touched upon earlier, and it is a perfectly legitimate point. I think that it is one that should be considered very carefully indeed, because we all share the objective of wishing new entrants. There is land of all sorts. I was questioned by John Scott in the chamber last week about the general question of new entrants and referred to work that has been done under the chairmanship of myself and Henry Graham in persuading public bodies who own land to look at land that they have. Of course, public bodies that own land in the crofting counties areas would be encouraged to look at new entrants, not simply only in farming, but also in crofting. That is important work that is being done with the potential to provide some opportunities for new entrants. The Forestry Commission, of course, has led the way in this convener, but other public bodies such as Scottish Water, Scottish Natural Heritage, SEPA, local authorities and even smaller public bodies are actually quite large owners of land in Scotland. They hold it for the nation. They have all been asked and tasked by me and Mr Graham to go away and come back fairly early in the new year to advise us whether they think that there is potential to provide some of the land that they own, perhaps relatively small parts of it, Mr Chapman, for new entrants. That is a related piece of work that I hope will be of relevance to the topic. That is one issue, but my specific question was regarding the common grazings. I understand what you said about the various other bodies, but is it possible to use some of those common grazings to create new crops as well? It is a perfectly adjustment point that should be considered further to explore the means of fulfilling an objective that we all share. John Lennon, I think, your minister. We have heard fairly frequent mentions of small holders. I wonder if there are any plans that the Scottish Government has to bring small holders and crofters together and, indeed, pose the question, could this be part of a simplification of crofting law? I am not ruling out that there may be a need to simplify and improve the legislation governing small land holding and the need to best make crofting and small land holding legislation work in practice. Unlike crofting, which is undertaken in specific parts of Scotland and only designated parts of Scotland, small land holdings are spread across the country. Turning them into crofts is not necessarily the answer. There are concentrations of small land holders in Ayrshire, Aberdeenshire, Dumfries, Scottish Borders and East Central Scotland. There is only a small number within the designated crofting areas. Recently, I can share with the committee that my officials met small land holders on Arran. They heard differing views. Some wanted to be crofters, some didn't. Some also don't want to be tenant farmers either. It's right that we consider all of their views and the views of other small land holders across the country to give them an opportunity to have their voices heard before decisions are made that affect their homes and businesses. The Scottish Government has said that it is going to legislate on crofting possibly towards the end of the parliamentary session. You yourself have rehearsed some of the options for that legislation and how it will. You haven't expressed a preference. Is there one way of legislating coming forward that might be the Scottish Government's preference and what would be the timescale for consulting on that? There is a script here, but I think that I don't need it because I won't use it. I think that there really are two main approaches and then a hybrid. The two main approach is a sort of clean sheet approach that has been advocated by some. The second approach is to tidy it up, to use the good work that has been done by lawyers and others who have produced the sump, which is a slightly derogatory word since it refers to a container for wastewater, but it is actually a valuable container of useful ideas to reform and upgrade the legislation. However, there are those two approaches, a fundamental overhaul, starting from first principles to update crofting law fit for the 21st century. I hope that I am fair in saying that Sir Crispin Agnew has perhaps advocated that kind of thing and to overhaul definitions of grazing committees to bring them into the modern parlance and concepts to allow them to be used as community development vehicles, for example. That is one approach and the other approach is to tidy up the existing legislation. Others, perhaps a third group, argue for a hybrid approach. There are others, and I should say this in completeness, that believe that you can have crofting, but not necessarily with the Crofting Commission. That is not a view that I share, but it is a view that has been expressed by others in the debate. I have no set view on what approach should be taken. I think that it is right that I should not have a set view at this very early stage in consideration. Indeed, if it is the case that an overhaul is something that we should look at, then, almost by definition, one should not have a set view until that approach has been fully considered. One should consider the merits of that approach first before coming to a view as to the correct approach to take. All of that means, as Rhoda Grant says, that I do not anticipate that the legislation will be in the first half of this parliamentary session nor should it. I think that most crofters of my acquaintance are blessed with large quantities of patience and would far rather that we spend a lot of time and have a lot of discussion rather than rush into one approach or another. I hope that I have given a reasonably clear answer to Rhoda Grant. When are you looking to consult on this, formally consult, so that you take some of those views forward? I suppose that my own concern is that the 2010 act, which has provided an awful lot of the issues that are now being put in the sump, was done at the end of a parliamentary session. I would say with some undue haste because of the timing of that, that there was not the chance maybe to go back and review some of the provisions where concerns were being raised. If the new crofting act, whatever the form it takes, is at the same place in a Parliament, then I suppose my own fear, and that is a personal fear, is that the same thing would happen and we would end up with legislation that then creates problems going forward. I agree that we need to get it right but rushing it through at the end of the Parliament might not be the way of doing that. I hope that it is not impertinent to say that it is a slightly gloomy perspective to argue that legislation passed it in the last year of a Parliament is necessarily inferior to that passed at a different stage in Parliament. As someone who has been the lead minister in many pieces of legislation, some of which are at the end of the Parliament, I suppose it would be a concept with which I could only bristle initially at least. The important thing to me to be serious conveners is that I do not think that this is a process to be rushed. I do sincerely think, and I am not trying to dodge any question or dodge any question about timetable. I really do believe very strongly that we should tack tent, we should take time to listen to views very carefully. I do not think that there is any compulsion or sort of compulsor that we have got to rush into this. My impression is that that is not what is expected of us. I think that the fact that the committee has decided to do this work is a very welcome contribution to opening a debate on a topic where there are very clearly different approaches that could be taken and therefore we need to collectively consider that decision first very carefully about what we want to achieve by the work that we do in this place. If I could just really press you on this, cabinet secretary, because you said that we should take time but could we not or could you not or could somebody not fairly quickly make a decision as to whether we are just going to do a kind of sump tidying up exercise and maybe a consolidation which would be pretty straightforward and we could move forward fairly quickly on or the kind of clean sheet which clearly will take a lot longer if we are going to rewrite the whole legislation from scratch. Does that basic decision not need to be made fairly soon because there is no point delaying if we are just going to do the sump thing in two years' time? No, I do not really accept that that is the correct way to look at it for the following reasons. First of all, if we decided simply to proceed with the sump, I do not expect that that would be a simple process and moreover it would be one that would lend itself perfectly legitimately for every member who wished to supplement any bill with the first approach. If a bill is produced about crofting law, it is quite open to members to bring forward amendments to that bill to fundamentally overhaul crofting. Just by the Government choosing one or other, does not necessarily mean that that will be Parliament's choice. It is up to Parliament what choice to take. I would far rather work towards developing in collaboration an agreement about which approach to take between fundamental overhaul and upgrading and improving. I think that that does need time and we have made it quite clear that we are not expecting to legislate in the early stages of this Parliament. I do agree that the decision on timing of a future bill needs to be taken in due course in the context of the Scottish Government's other legislative priorities. I undertake that we will consider that decision very carefully, but I do not think with all respect to the member who is quite rightly pressing me—fair enough—that you could decide just to have the Sump legislation to tidy things up and that that would of necessity mean that that is what Parliament would do. Lastly, I would say that there is nothing very simple about crofting law. There is nothing easy about crofting law. I think that we have seen that in the Rhoda Grant and Mr Rumbles myself and Mr Stevenson have seen that through the various previous efforts that very well-intentioned ministers have made of all administrations. There is nothing easy. There are no easy solutions that we find here. To me, that argues for us to take the approach that I have advocated, that we try to develop, convener, if we can, a broad consensus in and out with this place before we decide which approach to take. Mike, I am going to bring you in and then there are some questions on finance, which I would like to wrap up with, if I may. Thank you, convener. I must be very pleased to say that I think that you are doing absolutely the right approach to this from a governmental perspective. You are going to take time to get this decision right, whether it is a blank sheet of paper that you start with and restart the whole thing again, or whether you amend it. I do understand that the Government does have a huge amount of resources to get this right, but it will take time to do it, to present it for the committee and Parliament to examine it. My only plea would be that I think that if we spend a great deal of time from a Government perspective getting this right and then presenting the legislation, it is very important that the committee itself is not rushed because the Government takes such a perhaps a long time to present a bill, that the committee has an appropriate period to examine in detail to make sure that everybody gets this right, because we are all working for the same thing. Just to apply for time on the Parliament side as well as the Government side, if you see what I mean. I find myself in agreement with Mr Rumble. It is a very happy state to be in. It is not a daily occurrence, I do not think that. No, I think that he is absolutely right. I undertake to work with the committee. I think that the committee's role is valuable and that the work that you are doing is useful. I undertake to continue to work with the committee on that. I think that that is the best approach. I am particularly keen to get a bipartisan approach across the political parties, if we possibly can. Cabinet Secretary, I have three questions on financial matters, if I may. One is with the budget coming up. The Government has been good at supporting the Crofter's bull scheme, which I believe costs in the region of a quarter of a million pounds a year to run in excluding capital costs. Is the cabinet secretary happy that that scheme will continue to run to the level that it has with the investment that it has posed to the budget that is shortly to be announced? I have been pleased to take a lot of decisions on the loan scheme as quickly as possible. That is because every loan is granted to a single person. I meant the bull scheme. I am pretty sure that I said the bull scheme. No, that is my next question. You can answer that one in a minute, if I may. I cannot make any—it would be wrong for me to make any undertakings about the budget. It is not for me to do both the loan and the bull scheme to play a valuable role. Of course, we want to continue to do everything that we can to support crofting. I should also say—and I am well placed to say this—that we are under enormous financial pressure in the budget. If you look at the pressures that are coming our way in the reduction and diminution in our budget, I am afraid that in my seat there are just not easy answers. I do not mean this to be political. There are just a series of very difficult choices that are convened to be made, and therefore I do not think that it is really—I do not think that I can really be drawn—you may try, of course, but I do not think that I can really be drawn into specifics, nor would it be right for me to do so because all of these matters are quite properly the province of Mr Mackay's, the finance sector, in discussion with all cabinet secretaries. However, I am very pleased that we have been able to support the various schemes. I was very pleased to visit one of the recipients of crofting alone who had completed his house. It is a very effective and cost-efficient method of providing houses. There is not a great deal of bureaucracy or administration involved. Although, where mortgage is to be available more easily and more readily to young people and crofts, it might be easier to go ahead and see even more young people build houses or obtain a house on the croft. That is what we want. We want repopulation, and it is not easy to achieve, so all those things will be borne into account in the decisions with regard to budget. Cabinet Secretary, I understand that you would want to get around the edges of that, but I take your understanding and commitment that both the bull scheme and the crofting house grant scheme are both important and that, where it would be possible, they should continue to the level that they are. Final question is, Cabinet Secretary, to ask whether he believes that the Crofters Commission has sufficient resources to carry out the functions that you are asking them to do. Obviously, all public bodies require to optimise the use of finite resources. They need to be as efficient as possible. The Crofters Commission has already taken proactive action to improve organisational effectiveness. For example, they include the introduction of a new electronic case management system, the introduction of regulatory policies and delegated decision-making, some of those topics that we have covered. They have made progress, but, like all public bodies, I think that more progress will require to be made at a time of very serious budget financial pressure. Those are not easy matters at all, but, as far as I know, all the chief executives of public bodies are well aware of that and work with the Scottish Government in order to get the best results possible out of an increasingly reduced budget. Cabinet Secretary, those are all the questions that we had for you. I wonder whether there is anything that you would like to add or anything that your team would like to add before I close the subpart of the meeting. It is not for me to say, but I do hope that we can work together and expect that we will over the issues in the way that Mr Rumbles suggested. I also hope that this is really for the committee, so it is not meant to be cheeky, but I hope that some meetings can be held in the Crofting Counties, perhaps in Stonaway or other places. Gil Ross is looking very enthusiastic here. Perhaps our constituency might be an appropriate location. I am sure that those are the sorts of things that committees have always done in the Scottish Parliament, but it would be very appropriate for that to be considered as the way in which we do our work. That might allow evidence-taking and so on from ordinary individuals who generally will not, because of the geographical distance from this place, have their voices heard. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Thank you for those comments. Indeed, that last one about getting out and about was not cheeky at all. It is part when we consider the island build, one of the things that we had on our agenda, for looking to see if we could meet Crofters. So thank you for that comment. I would like to thank all the witnesses for attending today's meeting. This is the committee's final plan meeting on its review of the legislative priorities for Crofting. The committee will now consider the evidence that it has heard and will write to the Scottish Government in due course. Thank you very much for attending today. I would now like to suspend the meeting to allow a changeover of panels, and there will be a five-minute comfort break for those members of the committee. Thank you, cabinet secretary. The fourth item on the agenda is the committee's first evidence session on the Scottish Government's forthcoming draft budget, 2017-18. Today, we are going to focus on forestry, and I would like to welcome all the chief executive of CONFOR, John Hollingdale, the chief executive from the Community Woodland Association, Willie McGee, co-ordinator of the forest policy group, and Roddy Sherry, the managing director of Alba Tree's Blicuus days. I would like to welcome you all to the meeting, and I can invite each of the witnesses to give very brief outline of their respective roles and that of their organisations that they represent. With that being rude, if you could keep it as brief as possible so that we can then get into our questions. I would like to start off with Stuart, because you just happened to be the first on the list, if that is right, please, Stuart. Okay, thank you, convener. CONFOR is a principal representative body for the forestry and wood processing sector. We operate across the UK, but based in Scotland, we have 1,600 members, about half of which are based in Scotland, representing the full range of the supply chain and the forestry and wood processing sector. I would describe it as a broad church. We have everything from environmental NGOs, large forestry businesses and sole traders, and we operate on the basis of having appointed members to a board, and from that board we agree our policy, and it is my responsibility to be representing that policy in places such as this. The last thing to point out is that, in terms of both direct membership and indirect membership through the agents and the businesses that are working in the sector, we feel that we represent the overwhelming majority of the forestry sector, the private forestry sector, in Scotland. John, would you like to... Thank you, convener. Yes, I'm John Haulindale. I'm CEO of the Community Woodlands Association, and we're a membership organisation established in 2003 by community woodland groups across Scotland, some of whom are very much older than we are. We have 175 members ranging, located in the middle of Edinburgh and Glasgow, right out to Western Isles, very north of Scotland. Great diversity of woodlands communities and activities from small woods on the edge of town, focusing on recreation, to large commercial forest operations, particularly in the north and west, operating as social enterprises, so managing forest commercially, but then reinvesting those profits for social benefit, creating housing, setting up renewable schemes and creating a lot of jobs. The forest policy group is an independent think tank. We produce research pieces on local community forestry deer, the types of woodland that Scotland has got and what it may need. We are very interested in local economy and in a diverse woodland portfolio, if you like, for Scotland. I guess we would say that, where Stuart badges a lot of forestry, we would represent the opinions of the small, medium-sized operators or owners. Rodney Sherer is the largest container tree nursery in Great Britain. We are approximately 40 per cent of all the container trees of the country. We produce about 140 different species, and that is spread over both commercial forestry and native-style forestry. Perfect. There are a series of questions that we would like to ask. I will look to each of you to bring you in. If you do not want to answer or do not want to be called to answer on any of them, just do not catch my eye or go like that. I am very happy to pass you by. It is just that some people will want to give fuller answers and there may be some areas that you do not want to answer on. The first question is, I believe, myself. There we go. Following up on the concerns expressed by the Rocky Committee, does the panel think that Forestry Commission Scotland can continue to deliver all of their requirements and responsibilities in the face of real-term budget reductions? Have you seen any impacts of those real-term reductions? I think that it is quite clear that, if the Forestry Commission is going to be delivering the objectives that the Scottish Government itself has said, then the budget will be insufficient. Just to pick up a very specific point, on the planting side, there is a projected budget of £36 million for a forestry grant scheme, which is not just planting, but the bulk of it is planting, £30 million of that. Our calculation, if it is to achieve the £10,000 hectare a year target, which the Scottish Government has said, then if we look at the average rate of grant, which is being paid out, then we calculate that it would require £45 million per annum in total. That is to achieve the £10,000 hectare a year target. If we look at it in the context of the previous Government's objective of trying to achieve 100,000 hectares by 2022, which was something agreed with the agricultural community, the forestry community more generally and the Government at the time, we are falling behind in the achievement of that objective. In order to achieve that 100,000 hectare target, we would have to be planting 13,000 hectares a year, which would require an overall budget under the forestry grant headline of £59 million. So, just in that one area alone, we are not with the current budget able to deliver the current Government target or we would just see as the required target over the 10-year period. Did you mean Forestry Commission Scotland and Forest Enterprise Scotland? I mean, it's always the difficulty of separating the requirements. I think what we're trying to identify is whether the forestry planting targets from the Government can be met within the budget that's been allowed, which I think is what Stewart was picked up on. I think that, certainly as an individual who bought land in September 2015 in the borders applied for a grant, got the grant through in three months, and that was in the teeth of a scheduled ancient monument and some environmental concerns, I think that one of the concerns that I would have is that the commission itself, in terms of its staffing, is under pressure. I think that we are the cabinet secretary doing a marvellous job at obfuscating in the face of giving financial figures for Government departments, but it's absorbed, I think, Bob McIntosh, started cutting posts and funding within the Forestry Commission in preparation, if you like, for austerity. My Forest Policy Group would certainly like to see the Forestry Commission and Forest Enterprise Scotland better resourced, not only to do things like restocking in Forest Enterprise, but in terms of enabling. The Forestry Commission Scotland has always been an enabler, which means that it is able to give advice, to assist agents, to give guidance and the time and the resources that they've got just now are frankly not up to my... I would agree with Stuart's point about the actual absolute money terms, but I think that the organisation itself needs to be well resourced. I think that I've just endorsed those two points and a lot of our members have remarked on the apparent stress within Forestry Commission staff, people being asked to do more with less resources. I've had a past comment on the plant and targets. If the plant and target is approximately 10,000 hectares a year, I think that there's enough will in the private industry to meet that target, because at present moment we have over 10,000 hectares of submitted options into the scheme. We have pre-submitted inquiries to the Forest Commission for a further 11,000 hectares. The biggest problem that we've got right now is that we've got 5,900 hectares that are now approved, and that 5,900 hectares is taking £27 million of the money, so there's absolutely no way that the budget is going to meet to get up to 10,000 hectares. Once you get through... First of all, we needed a will within the private industry to plant that number of trees, so I would say that you have that. The second one is, is there enough money? That can be answered by whoever sets budgets. Practical detail, you get after that. Because of the lack of continuity in the plant over the last few years, we've been losing people, losing employees in the forestry industry. The one thing that we do need in our industry is continuity, so we can retrain people and bring people back in. The whole labour issue as to whether we could plant 10,000 would be answered by the private trade if we had continuity. Next step after that is, is there enough trees? People like myself, I'm one of six major nurseries in Scotland. We're trying to plan production of trees two or three years in advance of any schemes being approved, so for us it's becoming increasingly difficult to be able to have the confidence to plan trees for the future. We're getting to the point where we've just gone through a year where the nurseries in Scotland have destroyed approximately three million trees. We can't have another year like that. Thank you for that. That's sort of leading into the next question, or a question further down the line. I think that the point made is that the staff are under pressure, the budget's under pressure, and we're not going to achieve the planting target. That's the general response from all, I think, is it? No one wants to add to that. John Finnie, I think that you're next. Thank you, convener. Good morning, panel. I'd like your views, please, on a forest enterprise approach to the acquisition and sale of land. For instance, when we were told in 2014 that it could be used to encourage new entrants into forestry, how's that panned out, please? If I could start the ball rolling on that one. Yes, forest enterprises are charged within the repositioning programme to sell, to raise money, to buy, to buy bare land. Ostensibly, it was to meet climate change targets, and in the last iteration, they were buying farms, which was relatively contentious. There were new entrants as in young tenant farmers in the lower Langland, and the forestry happening on the uplands or out by land. In the forest policy group, we lobbied quite hard for some mechanism whereby you could have new forest owners, new forest tenants, new forest entrants, and I don't think that it's not been achieved. I think that it can be achieved, and I think that the repositioning programme that the cabinet secretary is considering now, we don't know what the target is. Perhaps some of you do—12 to 36,000 hectares of public forest estate to be sold off in the next four years to raise money—to reclaim the mining sites that were left by bankrupt coal companies. That's the message that we've been getting. We don't see that as a very good use of land. We think that it could be better used in productive forestry, or productive native woodland or commercial forestry, whichever, and to encourage new entrants. I think that there is an opportunity, and I think that forest enterprise are a flexible and listening organisation. They're adaptable, and if they were instructed by the Government to encourage new entrants, they would do that. Repositioning, as Willie says, has been going on for some time. We've been sympathetic with the principle of repositioning. At the end of the day, the national forest estate in Scotland emerged out of the 20th century and on the objectives of the 20th century and what publicly owned forest should be seeking to deliver, which was primarily timber production. Fast-forwarding into the 21st century does beauty make sense to say that a national forest estate is there to deliver a wider range of benefits, including stimulating the opportunity for new entrants, whether that's in forestry or farming. We are sympathetic with that approach and I think that there are opportunities, including for example in farming, to provide for new entrants. I think that the key thing for us is that when we are going through a process of repositioning, the forests that are then sold, and primarily those are productive forests, they are not selling forests on the edge of towns, which are important for local access. It tends to be forests that are primarily there to be producing wood. We know that we've got a really difficult issue facing the sector in 20, 30, 40 years' time of a declining availability of wood, which is going to hit rural businesses in the forestry sector very hard. We are nervous that if you go down a repositioning programme and then you sell productive forests and then those productive forests are lost, cleared or not managed, then it means that we are draining the supply of wood available. The significant component of the new planting that we're putting in place is to tackle that future lack of availability. If we're not mindful of what happens with the forests that we sell, then we're making it even harder to achieve our new planting targets. We support the principle. We think that there are opportunities for it to both provide for a new entrance. It is an opportunity to be investing in new woodland creation. It could happen in different ways. We'll have to see what comes out of it, as Willie says, but our plea would be that the woodland that is sold shouldn't just be lost, it should be sold to somebody—we have an example in the community sector, the North West Mall community, for example—who manages that forest and is supporting rural jobs, and it is putting wood into the basket of Scotland's forestry resource. That is the kind of approach that we would like to see. Likewise, we are very supportive of the principle and particularly the principle of the repositioning programme that the receipts are retained within forestry for forestry purposes. I think that was the critical step forward in 2005, rather than receipts disappearing back off to the UK Treasury. That's really important. Disposal has been an important trigger for community acquisition, and I think over the last decade, something like 4,000 hectares of disposals, which is six or seven per cent of the total, has gone into community hands. Those community bodies, as part of the process they go to, are required to demonstrate what their plans for future management are, and very often that's more intensive management, bringing woods into management, doing more than forest enterprise would have been able to do. It would be an interesting step to place some of those requirements on all purchasers, because at the moment, if it goes to community hands, there is a requirement to have an appropriate management plan and a commitment from the community to deliver certain public benefits. The reminder that's sold into the private sector has no such requirement at all. Of course, some of it is bought by private sector companies that do manage those forests productively. I'm not making the case that all of them don't, but there is a risk that some will get lost, and it will be an interesting step, I think. Ronny, do you want to follow up on that? Thanks very much indeed for that. Can I ask then about the income from sales, what use it's been put to, and do you think it's appropriate, or would you have other suggestions? Yep, Willie. I've got very strong opinions about it. I love to hear them. Previously, what I believe happened—I'm looking along at my learned colleagues here—when the forest enterprise was disposed of 1,000 hectares on the west coast of Scotland, and then they bought a farm in Fife of 200 hectares, they then had—with the receipts, they then had to—that covered all the operations. Obviously, the unit cost, the hectareage cost was higher for buying agricultural land, and they then had to fund the establishment of the forest out of the receipts. What's being proposed now is, as I said, that sites in central Scotland or Ayrshire that were abandoned by the likes of Scottish, Coal or others who went down the tubes and left derelict sites will—essentially, what we're doing is we're selling rural forests, which may be of benefit to rural communities if they can get their hands on them. That's great, but then the receipts will go into, if you like, greening or reclaiming abandoned industrial land, which, for those of us that have worked in the central belt, know the unit costs are staggering to a forest, a piece of land, and the central Scotland might be £20,000 per hectare on the side of a hill in Caithness. It might be £2,000 or on the borders or something like that. So what we've got is essentially a Government signing—we think—signing up to do something quite barking. Who will benefit from the greening, I should describe it, of those sites shamelessly abandoned by some of these coal companies? What do you view it as barking though? If there were community benefits and communities adjacent to those sites were seen to benefit, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but many of those sites, if you go to places near Allawa, they're not adjacent to communities per se. They might be a few miles or more than two or three miles from the community, and it's not entirely obvious why, as Government, you would pick up the tab for somebody else's failure to do something that might not benefit the community. I think that you would want to look very carefully and consult with the local community about how they would want the money to be spent. Can I just see if I can bring in John, because I know that you want to follow this out. I just want to see if anyone else has a particular point, because I think what you're suggesting is that it will achieve greening, but it won't achieve commercial timber. Is that right? Or community buy-in. I think that all too often, money, as with the buying of farms, that was great for potentially climate change targets in the short term, but maybe not great value for money, but it didn't really necessarily benefit communities. John, do you want to come up on that? I think it's very difficult to say what will be produced if the greening of some of these sites goes ahead, because on a site-by-site basis some of them will have land that was never mined in the first place, some that's been partially restored, some that's been barely restored at all, and clearly what you might be able to produce off those will vary greatly. In terms of community buy-in, again I think that that's a very case-by-case basis. I think on the acquisitions that have happened to date, I'm aware that some certainly have had considerable community buy in the forest enterprise border site outside WIC in Caithness, and I think the community have been involved in that process and the feedback that I've had is very positive. Whether that's a cost-efficient way of doing it, of achieving those public benefits is a slightly different question, and I might reserve judgment on that in some cases. Before I bring Stuart in, John, do you want to add to that? It was just maybe going to the acquisition. Had any of the panel any concerns about any major acquisition, perhaps from a major landowner of forest? The forest enterprise buying land from a major landowner, as in putting money in a landowner's pockets, is that what you mean? Yes, again, I think that I might use John's more guarded word. I think that that would very much depend on a landowner, by a landowner basis, on who the land was acquired from and for how much. In essence, I would wish to see that kind of purchase operating under the new community asset transfer scheme. In that scheme, you do not have to buy at valuation. As far as I understand, you do not have to buy at valuation. If you can make a case that there are public benefits that flow from the acquisition, so a community wants to buy a bit of forest enterprise ground and it's £1 million, you could buy for under that if you can demonstrate public benefits and maybe that is a way of dealing with the landowner purchase. Any disposals that were subsequently acquired? Disposal to a major landowner then subsequently bought back? No, no, I would be very interested in that. Do you want to come in there? Yes, just a few points to pick up on the things that have been said. The main principle comes down to the fact that you have both the forest that is being sold and then the land that is being purchased and how you go about that and what it achieves. In terms of the land being sold, there is a general view that we want to retain that as forestry, that in the past there has been an option under the old national forest land scheme whereby communities had an option to buy at first and then there was a nested arrangement of other organisations and then it was private sale. As John has said, there was no need to be specifying how that forest would be managed in a private sale whereas when we are moving forward with a new system being launched, our view is that there still should retain an option for a community buyer. There is an awful lot of very positives for that to achieve. Beneath that, it should be open for sale but there should be something in place to ensure that that forest is going to be managed as a forest and it is going to be providing a productive outcome. That is what it was established for. It is there as an asset for the local community for the wider region. That should be retained in some way, so we feel that that is important. You then come on to the issue of buying the land and what can it be for. My perspective is that if we are looking at, when one of the options may be greening former coal land, my understanding, as John says, is that that is not necessarily just the spoilheats themselves and the reconditioning of the land, it can also be land that was not damaged around it. In that context, there may be an opportunity to grow some decent forestry. Mix more than forestry, which is providing income but also biodiversity in places for recreation. A lot will come down to just what is being proposed on a case-by-case basis and the public benefits can flow from that. It is very difficult to say that it is a good or a bad thing. It could be a good thing and we would hope that, if we go down the route of ensuring that there are real public benefits flowing out of it, that it will be a good thing as long as we also look after the forest that was sold. There is a net benefit. I think that it would be my summary. Rodi, do you want to come in on that?  It depresses me at times when we see we all seem to fall into two camps. It is either commercial forestry or it is for community benefit. I really do not understand why the two just do not come together. Native trees can be productive, the same as commercial trees can create good habitats and good public access now. That would be my only comment. Ryder, I think that you wanted to ask a question on that. Yes, it was just the disparity of costs from the land, the combining land to planting in Caithness. Obviously, there are clean-up costs, but why is that such a huge difference? It is partly the state of the land and the ground preparation that you have to do in order to get that land suitable to grow trees. On many of those mining sites, you have to either treat the soil or bring in new topsoil or your planting species that are going to be tolerant of whatever it is in there, such as heavy metals or compounds that are hostile. Normally, we use a mixture of exotic trees, such as Olnus rubra, red alder and Central Scotland. Even in Edinburgh, if you go to Craigmiller or one of those community forests in Edinburgh, you will find that planting costs may be anywhere between £7,500 and £15,000, depending on what you have to do to protect the site. Those industrial sites are very challenging. On a hillside, you are essentially, if you can protect from deer, and we do not really want to get into deer, just going to do it. If you take them out of the equation, then the planting costs are relatively modest. You can be a couple of thousand pounds per hectare. It is all to do with the preparation, the actual planting cost and then the protection. Can I just ask a question on the repositioning? My brief research shows that the forestry sales have been four times the amount of purchases in the last four years. The Scottish Government policy was to reposition woodlands, which allowed them to sell off bits that did not quite fit within the portfolio to increase the tree cover. Do you think that there is merit in ensuring, because I picked up on the point that John had made about keeping receipts being used in forestry, particularly in the land on which the trees would be growing? Do you think that there would be merit in trying to get money reinvested in a shorter term, i.e. not sit on it for four years, or do you think that that will create an artificial market in that when people see the forestry being sold, they will know that they can bump up the price of bare land to get when the forestry has the cost to pay for it? I wonder if you have a view on that. I think that there are a couple of points there. One is, as you are saying, the income has exceeded expenditure in recent years. There is a banking up of money there. Part of it has been an issue that was maybe relevant to John Finnie's question around the land that has been purchased and the other controversies around that. What we did see was that there was quite an active programme of selling and buying land, but it bumped up against agricultural concern about lost arable land in particular. The original repositioning programme was intended to deliver planting across a range of land types. The agricultural community was very upset when high-quality arable land was being purchased by the Forestry Commission to plant trees. That resulted in the Woodland expansion advisory group and a whole lot of discussions about what is an appropriate level of planting—that 100,000 hectare point that I said earlier. However, what it did is put us a break on buying land. The repositioning programme was carrying on in terms of sales, but there was no opportunity to deliver the land purchases. That is part of why we have the issue that we have. In the second part of your question about whether we then tighten up and make that work, what are the impacts of it? Our feeling is that you want to make sure that the money is reinvested in Forestry and that some of the money has leaked out into supporting grants, where we have had increased level of demand and there has not necessarily been the budget availability. All of us on the panel here will be in the favour of not leaking money out in that way, so that the Government should provide the funding that is required for planting and that there is a repositioning programme that should be recycled into Forestry. That is done in a way to deliver benefits that the private sector is not able to deliver or better able to deliver. That would then make less of an impact in terms of land prices. If you are then trying to deliver what is the same as the private sector as delivering, you will create additional demand for available land, which, if it becomes tighter, availability will drive prices up. It is important that we look at how we complement things in order to get value for money for the public purse, but also make sure that we deliver a wider variety of benefits. Does anyone want to add all the hands going up? John, do you go first? I may be wrong about this, but my impression was that there had not been a huge build-up of money stored. There is certainly more money received from selling land than is spent on buying land, but that gap is then—or what is in the middle—is spent largely on the woodland creation and the other works that go on with the new land. You would have to get someone from the commission to give you the final numbers on those. I am aware that it has been difficult for FE to engage in the land market to acquire sites in a lot of cases. There is not a huge turnover of land sales in Scotland. Without that, trying to go in and find things to buy is very difficult. In a tight market, in a market where a lot of people would think that the price of land is not reflected in its productive capacity, it makes it very difficult for FE to go and buy land at a price that really makes sense, it seems to me. John has made most of my point. I was under the impression that it was less sitting on money, but some of the farm purchases have entered into arrangements with the likes of—I am not sure that it is Till Hill—other private sector companies where they are contracting in to do the forest establishment. A portion of that money has been sitting waiting to go out the door into the actual establishment, into the trees themselves. It will be interesting to see if repositioning goes ahead at the scale that it does. Up till now, we have had about 50,000 hectares of public land from our forestry state sold. If the cabinet secretary is minded to put 36,000 on the market in the next four years, that will mean that it bites deeply into what the public would see as more sensitive forests. There is no way around that. We have looked at some of the scoring systems with the Forestry Commission and Forest Enterprise, and you would have forests coming on the market that, if you like, would attract a lot more public attention than forest sales to date have done. That is just something to bear in mind. I think that we will leave repositioning if that is all right and move on to Marey Snedd. I think that you are next. The Rocky Committee in 2014 had expressed concerns about the transparency, accessibility and the consultation around the processes, sales and purchases of land from the Forestry Commission by Forest Enterprise. It was really just to ask your opinions on that, and would you say that you are content with the transparency, accessibility and consultation around that, or would you make any changes to it? If you would, what would they be? I am going to let John go first. I will just get a change in order. In terms of disposals, yes. There is a well-established system whereby disposals are lined up some way in advance. There is a degree of pre-notification that allows communities and others to know what is coming. You know what is in the pipeline for the next year or so. Clearly, some forewarning is good, and there is a process by which communities are formally notified. Very occasionally on the ground, it does not work quite so well because it goes through a community council, and that community council does not function particularly well, but that is not really something that is a major issue. The disposal side, the transparency and the accountability is fine once Forest is notified. I think that in terms of acquisitions, inevitably a lot of things get done with the requirement for commercial confidentiality, whether that is buying bare land or buying existing woodlands. Quite often that requirement for confidentiality is placed on the negotiation by the seller. It is not FC, or as far as I am aware, it is the one requiring that. I guess a moot point is that, if the Forestry commission is going to buy land from private individuals or private organisations, generally they will have the right to demand confidentiality. Whether that should be subject to someone else's scrutiny is, I guess, for MSPs to decide, rather than us to have a view on. Willie, do you want to come in on that? Again, John has answered fairly comprehensively. Forrest Policy Group, we have been working with Forrestry commission forrest enterprise for the last four years. What we have done is we have been looking at their sales portfolio, and John has been part of this process. Even down to the simplest things, like a great big sign at the end of the forest, we think that they could do better in terms of transparency. Very simple things, not complicated or consultation processes but just some notice in newspaper and sign at the end of road. What we have been particularly interested in is sales where you have the potential to lot a forest.  You have a community close by who could afford a bit of it but not all of it. We have been working with Forrest Enterprise land agents to see if we can identify potential areas for local communities or small businesses. We believe that one of the drivers in the next five to ten years in Forrestry is going to be trying to get more local involvement in forests and local businesses. John said everything that I would have said about purchases. I do not see anywhere around that. Stuart McMillan, do you want to follow that up? The next question is from Richard McMillan. Forrestry has contributed nearly £1 billion to the economy. Nearly 25,000 full-time jobs but, basically, you are saying that we are under planting 17,000 hectares behind annualised target so we need to plant about 13,000 hectares each for the next of each year, for six years, at least 9,000 of which has to be productive conifer. In the spotlight, I am going to put you in the previous committee, the Iraqi committee. Conifer told the previous committee that the money available for the planting was insufficient, going so far as to call it pathetic. In your response today, why would you still believe that planting targets? I know that I have given you the answer. Why do you think that planting targets are still consistently not being met and you still think that the budget is pathetic? Rodney is going to go first on that.  However, the overall budget for the target is 10,000 hectares and 31 million if we are already up to 27 million and we are on 5,9 million. It is just a fact that it will not get to 10,000. It is just not possible. When you look at the breakdown of where the grant money goes, the only efficiencies that you have is the type of forestry that you invest in. If you invest in commercial forestry, that tends to be a lower price per hectare and you get more trees in the ground, but your forestry is a multi-objective. You are not just looking for commercial forestry, you are still looking for native-type forestry. However, the fact of the matter is that native-type forestry costs more per hectare. Many years does it take for that to inform people. I love the adverts on the television that it says that for every paper-tile we use, we will plant three trees. Does that happen and how long does it take for your average woodland in Scotland to grow to productive? Commercial forestry is the first thing that is about 40 years and a full crop is about 70 to 80, roughly speaking. However, when we plant trees back into an area that has been felled, what you have to realise now is that every area that gets felled now, the trees that go back in, even in commercial forestry, is not like a monoculture or sick of spruce going back in. We are paying attention to diversity of conifer species. A fair proportion of what goes back in now will not be a commercial crop. If we plant three trees but you plant one for environmental reasons, only two will contribute to your paper in the future. There is a price pain for that. Stuart McMillan, do you want to come in on that?   That was a previous committee. It is not one that we would drive to use in this committee. I was going to make a serious point on top of that, which is that you say pathetic because it gives you media coverage, but I think that the serious point behind that is that at the time we weren't convinced that there was the political support and the action being taken to deliver, so what we wanted to do was to raise the fact that we thought was a fundamental problem. Now we are in a situation where we believe, with the current Cabinet Secretary in particular, that there is a political understanding and not just at that level. We think in the intervening few years that the MSPs on this committee and other MSPs that we speak to appreciate and understand the issue that we are facing. I do feel one in a very different position. That is in terms of political awareness and appreciation. However, in terms of funding, it is still there is an issue. If we are going to deliver the target that we are aiming for, the funding available is insufficient and that has to be addressed. Why has it not been met? In the past, it has not been met because one element is that we are tied into, with forestry, an agricultural scheme. That changes every seven years. You just look at what has happened in planting in the past and it goes like a roller coaster. It dips every time you come to a cap renegotiation period and pulls back up out of that because there is uncertainty of funding, people have a new scheme being brought in. There is not predictability, which is one of the things that Rodney referred to earlier. What we need to do is have a forestry scheme that is focused on delivering forestry planting and not tied into the whole cap process. That is possible and we have asked for it, but there have been reluctance to go down that route in the past. That would make a difference. We also need to broaden out and appeal to all the different types of landowners who want to plant. Some of that will be large-scale planting and that will be people generally buying land and they are looking for a shorter processing period. The cabinet secretary, we raised the issue around processing time, he pointed to Jim McKinnon. He has reported to the cabinet secretary, but we are waiting to hear back on that, but that is about speeding up the process so that somebody who is buying the land will know that they can plant that land and achieve that in a far shorter time scale, one year rather than three years. It is also to achieve the targets that are appealing to sheep farmers, state owners and people who have mixed use of land. There has been an underappreciation of the financial benefit that can come from planting trees of all types. It is not just conifers, productive, broadleaves, as well. They can all benefit. I think that there is a greater understanding around that, and I think that there is an opportunity over the next couple of years uncertainty around cat Brexit. I think that there will be a lot more interest from sheep farmers and state owners to be planting. That will help us and then there is community woodlands and the smaller scale forestry. All of that needs to come together to help us achieve that target. Along with the political support, with the funding being available and the communication of benefits, we will definitely achieve the target. Just before I bring you in, I think that girls have a supplementary that leads on to that and then bring in. I know that there are small questions piling up. Thanks, convener. We are talking about planting targets, and I think that we are focusing quite a lot on funding. Do you have any opinions on objections to planting proposals from either individuals or groups? Are there any improvements that could be made to the planning system to assess the targets being met? I am going to let Willie Coffin in because he was queuing up to get in after that. I do not know if you can weave your answer around that in the previous question. I think that it will ever be thus. I think that there will always be people who object rightly and wrongly. In my experience, I was director of Borders Forest Trust in managing something like 3,000 or 1,000 hectares in the Scottish borders. There was not a day that went by when we did not have some input to new planting that we were doing. Ours was native woodland planting, so it does not often, sometimes it does not help even if you are doing a different kind of planting. I think that the current process in terms of planning, it is slightly agreement with Stuart in terms of the rate of time it takes to go through a process if you have environmental impact assessments and you have the local council who are coming in and making comment. We were putting a new road in and that took three months to get approval for that. In terms of the absolute money terms, I know that you do not want this to go down the route of deer again, but a lot of the money that is in the grant scheme at the moment and a lot of the money that is expended in forestry is controlling deer. If you took that out and it went into just planting trees alone, it would make a big difference. The deer fences go up when you are obliged to put native woodland or species that are not sick as prousin, so it is a major issue for forestry. We would make bet