o be aware what failure is and Peter Peacock Thanks, convener to be frank about it we're pretty lukewarm about this proposal it's very difficult to be against it but for us it's not about land reform it's about land management and we are interested in change but that's a fundamental point however I thought also that Alec Ferguson the more he spoke today was opening up some really interesting and pertinent points about the difficulty of the lack of clarity about this now for our part given that this is here and it's going to remain here I'm quite sure about that you've got to try and make it work it seems quite weak to us in the sense that you could engage and ignore with great ease and that raises the question about sanctions and about compliance that Alec Ferguson raised and I guess that before I answer that point I just wanted to be quite clear about if this is to exist it cannot be about operational decisions day by day that would just be hopeless for the community it would be hopeless for the owner so it has to be about strategic long term land use planning rather like a local plan at an estate level if you're thinking about a large estate and I think like Sarah Jane that the way that the Scottish Government officials were beginning to flesh out to the committee last week what they envisaged by way of a consultation process and stakeholder engagement in developing the guidance I would be pretty relaxed about meeting some of the requirements that Alec Ferguson has highlighted because the interest around the table would be seeking to meet those interests so I wouldn't be unhappy about that on the part about compliance I suppose that technically in the policy memorandum certainly the officials or the Government I should say rather argue that it is if an owner did not seriously engage according to the guidance whatever that ultimately says and for our part we would like to go further than just engagement but actually the purpose should be to engage and seek to get a consensus an agreement about the long term land use plan to give a bit more power to the whole thing but if they failed to engage at all it is a factor that ministers could take account of an application to buy under part 5 but it is only one factor they may take account of given that the owner was showing no interest in engaging with the community for example but the converse is also true and this is a danger in it I think that if owners simply do this to tick the box of having done it so that they can defend against any future application to purchase it would work in that way too so I think there are some things to be further teased out but I think if we can get to the bottom of the kind of questions that Alec Ferguson was raising earlier particularly and I think some of the answers to that have come out in this panel then I think it would be good to get that further development of the thinking Archie Rintol and Pete Ritchie and back to Alec Ferguson if there's any other points so Archie Rintol Thanks convener I say certainly I welcome the provisions for guidance on community consultation we're very happy with that and I would agree with much of what Peter has said just in the issue of sanctions we think it has to be absolutely clear what the sanctions will be and how they will be used I think the policy memorandum suggests a number of areas where sanctions might become might be involved and how they might be used but I think there needs to be a greater clarity on that we think landowners involved really need to be absolutely clear what they must do and what will happen if they do not do this Pete Ritchie I mean in general Narish welcomes this proposal I think if we're going to seriously talk about land being managed in the public interest and for the common good then this process of engagement is part of a dialogue about trying to figure out what is that we have to have those conversations I agree it may or may not lead to people buying bits of land being managed more in the public interest and for the common good but I do think there needs to be as Andrew says clarity about what goes with that engagement we certainly had experience locally of a forestry company forest owned by somebody else managed by another forestry company 30 year replanting cycle to get their gold star for something they have to supposedly engage with the community they send us their plan there are 19 things we'd like to be able to do in terms of having paths through the forest when you replant dead silence and I think there is that sense sometimes that you think well what was that about then so I do think over time those standards need to be linked in some way to saying if you want to get this gold star or if you want to get permission to do this or if you want to get a grant for that you do have to have shown that you've done this and I don't think that's a bad thing I think even if people do it because it's a way of getting other things they want to do it's all business about engaging with communities to discuss what's in the public interest and what's for the common good I think it's progress So Anik Ferguson is there any points that need to be followed up? I would just like to follow up one little bit that's come out of that and really that all the contributors have raised which is a point I didn't bring up in the last discussion but it's whether Peter Peacock talked about a tick box exercise and of course the you go through the process ticks the boxes and then totally ignores the product of the discussion and does what he or she wanted to do in the first place and I can see the temptation that's in there my question is do you see a role for the land commission in this part of the procedure or does anybody? Well I haven't really thought about that so I need to think about that a bit further but in our evidence or written evidence we thought the land commission amongst its function should have the power to both assist with the creation of but also if necessary create codes of practice and codes of good guidance around land questions and to that extent they may well have a role in this but given the given the process the government are proposing to go through in relation to creating a guidance requirement upon them maybe the commission would not need to be involved in the level of detail but I really wouldn't you think further about that that's the only current connection I can see between the commission and that is about codes of practice codes of guidance to further develop these Fiona Mandible I don't have an answer to how how sanctions might be made or how all this that we've just been discussing can be implemented but I would just point out the results of it of community engagements when you look at Crofton community trusts that have ensued in so many of these Crofton community trusts and so that basically shows the importance of achieving engagement with communities Andrew Prendergast I'd just like to echo that point is that we've been talking as though there's a combative thing going on here between land management and communities but very often land managers and land owners have an awful lot to gain from that positive engagement and it can be around reputational and the community's attitude to them and it may not actually have to do very much to get an awful lot of positive points from engaging with the community Alex Ferguson I just perhaps to finish off convener I accept that absolutely but in any process like this there will inevitably be the odd occasion where there will be a combative element to it and where you have that you are going to need some sort of arbitration or mediation process the land commission may not be the right vehicle but I think that's something we need to think about as we take the bill forward Thank you convener I think we'll try to move on to part 5 now in the right to buy land to further sustainable development Angus McDonnell to lead Okay thanks convener following on from the discussion with the first panel I'd be keen to hear this panel's views on whether it's necessary to introduce an additional community right to buy procedure in addition to those already in place and if it is necessary how should all the various right to buy mechanisms coordinate with each other to ensure they are straightforward to understand and implement Andrew Prendergast to start off I would just like to say we certainly welcome this new right to buy and I do feel that it actually fills a gap between what has hitherto been in the existing community right to buy legislation extended to the Community Empowerment Act and the existing compulsory purchase powers that were open to certain public bodies but in actual fact were very rarely used but we do obviously note that the extent to which communities are going to be able to unlock the benefits from these provisions are going to depend on their capacity to implement what remains very complex area that's now divided between different pieces of legislation and other commentators earlier made reference to the fact that that will depend on communities social capital and their capability and that needs to be supported so that communities that are maybe less able to access the provisions in this bill and other legislation are able to do so Peter Peacock I would seem to Mr Fergus at the comfort rate that I keep getting this feeling of deja vu again about this because exactly the position we were arguing in relation to the Community Empowerment Bill we wanted to get the committee to and it's been quite evident that the result of the interaction between the committee and government has helped them clarify the proposals to allow this now to come forward at this bill so we're very happy to see this we think it's just a further step forward it's a further set of considerations a community can take into deciding how they want to move forward and it's also based on a more positive forward looking notion about the opportunity and the opportunity for further sustainable development and not just combating neglect or dereliction or whatever and harm in that sense so we welcome it generally there's a few things we think you could do to tighten it up in terms of some of the hurdles to get over a really quite high for communities the question of harm that was referred to in the previous panel could be modified or indeed removed as Andy Whiteman said although I think it's probably there for a very particular legal reason I think too that demonstrating that the community's proposal is the only way to do something is almost impossible to show and therefore again I think there are things you could do to tweak and adjust that I think on the specific questions asked about how do you coordinate between all these now different approaches and there was a lot of discussion about that at the last panel and we are our organisation is working with communities and aspirant communities for purchase all the time and you may not be aware or you may be aware that there's a short life working group that the Scottish Government have got working right now which is looking at how you put in place the support mechanisms to allow the one million acre target for community ownership to be realised and both Sarah Jean Lang and I are both sitting on that now it has not concluded its work and I cannot tell you what it's going to recommend because it's not agreed that yet but I can I'm sure with confidence tell you that there's been a lot of discussion in that group about how you promote awareness of all the different pieces of legislation that now exist because there's huge ignorance about that even amongst professionals in the land sector let alone amongst communities we don't think this is impossible to deal with we now have a very clear suite of things are very complex at one level we're quite confident it can be simplified so that short life working group is going to make recommendations to the Government I'm pretty confident they will say things about the need to promote more awareness of this but also to put in place the support arrangements that can allow communities to exercise a much higher degree of understanding in lay terms of what the law now provides and choose the avenue they want to choose to go down that best suits their circumstances to use the law if indeed that's the route that they want to go down to use the law so I'm quite sure that in the course of time you're going to see a huge amount more emphasis on both promotion awareness and support to communities to allow them to exercise the new rights that are now there because as other people have said that this is a complex landscape however you know communities have learned to live with this complex landscape and they've learned to make it work and there are people there who do completely understand it I'm not one of them but there are people there who do completely understand it and who can help navigate with communities through all the complexity of the law but there is a task to be done in better presenting that in lay terms but that's under way I would argue goodness it's not like the hulstein question that there are people who actually understand it I'm not going to have that Sarah Jane Lang I would agree in part with what Peter Peacock just said I do think there's a need to inform people and raise awareness of the roots of addressing barriers to sustainable development of course we're aware that those barriers aren't just linked to ownership there's lots of things going on in terms of involving people in planning and although we get a little bit hung up on the community empowerment acts provisions in relation to elected abandoned there are also provisions in there about locality planning which I do think will be quite instrumental in helping communities work with landowners and businesses to address sustainable development barriers in their area I would like to point out though that when we were discussing or going through the passage of the bill Peter referred to a few of the discussions which took place and the minister said at the time that landowners needed certainty as to the scope of the land which would be affected by the provisions I don't think that there is certainty if you look out your window today as a land manager you should be able to tell which areas of land are neglected or abandoned and they would be privy to the provisions contained within the community empowerment act if you're looking out your window you could be very happy with the way your land is managed you could be quite happy with the yield that your barley field is going to give you but the reality is that that property that field could be subject to these provisions these powers apply to land which is occupied which is properly and well managed and it seems to me clearly at odds with the Scottish Government's assertion that good landowners have nothing to fear from the land reform bill however I do think that there are situations where you do need to address barriers to sustainable development across Scotland I'm just not sure that this is a provision to do it A couple more comments on this Pete Ritchie and Andrew McCormick Pete Ritchie Okay I really just echo I think some of Sarah Jane's points about the complexity of this and this is just born out of experience of being part of a community group using the right to buy to try and get hold of derelict steadying which is in our view neglected and abandoned and I saw ending up losing in the courts over the right to buy and having to go back to square one we now look at this provision and think whether that's going to add another choice to go down it is certainly a good idea that there should be a power to purchase land compulsorily when it's clearly not being used in the best interests of sustainable development but I have to say we'd certainly feel from Narisha's point of view that it's time local authorities had a stronger role in land management and land acquisition in their localities we do feel they have a better understanding of local needs and local circumstances and us having to go to Scottish ministers to argue for a derelict steadying to be used for affordable rural housing just seems a bit disproportionate it ought to be able to be sorted out locally so we generally we'd like to see local authorities taking a stronger role in land ownership, land management and land acquisition and it's a sort of not a physical comment on this clause but it's saying that should be part of the direction of travel of land reform Andrew McCormick Thank you our members are quite a lot of worries about some of this right to buy as communities have first of all the definition of a community that really is something we have issues with because it's possibly a postcode it could be how long has the person been in that community is it a residency involved where the people are taking part in these decisions who is it that ultimately makes a decision and who is it that ultimately gives the answer to that decision all of these things are coming in this there are four key tests in there these four key tests seem to be skewed towards the community we would like to see a balance in there for the land owner land occupier we keep having to refer to land occupier because they are equal if there is a tenant farmer they are equal we would like to see them involved in this being a big part of what these decisions are is there a place in here for a lease rather than a sale would that not be a better community thing to have where there would be engagement between this community whoever it is would that be a possibility we see it working with turbines there is benefits to be achieved by farmers leasing land for a community benefit so that is something that needs to be taken account of there is also a big worry we have with this third party involvement with some of these communities there is people who could be brought in here to fund I would assume it is to fund a community plan or a community development we have to be very very careful with who these third parties are because if they are out there to make a development gain on this is that really in the benefit of the community because they could be using a community for their own benefit so that is a real worry to a lot of our members thank you okay I think we get that point Fiona Mandeval and Archie Rintel one of the most basic definitions perhaps are interpretations of sustainable development would be restoring communities to land that they once lived in and were cleared from and I am thinking of the straths of Sutherland for example and it would be a real good aim of this bill if it could find a way to help communities help people come back living in these glens again this would strengthen local communities it would open up more schools and local infrastructure and we would of course argue that any new holdings in these glens would be under crofting tenure crofting is held to be their own model for a small scale communities and development throughout Scotland and well beyond thank you Archie Rintel thank you convener I think RISS would agree that there is a gap there which potentially could be filled by this provision further than that I think the organisation for which I work my day job carries out the valuations under the 2003 act for the Scottish Government and certainly one of the things which we have been struck by is the difficulty which communities have in finding their way through the legislation in order to actually acquire that land and I appreciate what Peter says that there are organisations like his which can give guidance but it's still a significant hurdle I think for a lot of communities who perhaps don't even get as far as Peter's body if they're thinking about it because they have a look at it and think well this is really very difficult and I suspect that the provisions here do mirror those 2003 act and the changes made in the community empowerment act and that's fine and at least the provisions are pretty well the same but I think it will still be the case that they will still be difficult for a lot of communities to find their way through and I think the Scottish Government really will have to ensure that monitors it very clearly and it may very well be that it's this difficulty which is really responsible for the fact that there are relatively few transfers have taken place in the 2003 act Okay, I think Angus do you have a moment Andrew do you have any more points that you need to put on your this part One more Right, convener Peter Peacock has already touched on this earlier however just for the record it should consideration be given to providing for a direct power of ministerial intervention to byland to further sustainable development if there's no community present Peter Peacock Thanks, convener This is one of the things where we think there's a gap in the armory that's being provided by the bill and it partly relates to the point that Fiona Mandeville has just made I mean the only way in which these powers can be used is if a community initiates the action themselves and we know from our experience that not every community either wants to do that and concerns about their place and the land use some don't simply have the capacity to do it they don't have the strength to do it at that particular time but of course there are not communities everywhere I mean people driving here today I've commented on driving here today or yesterday and you're driving through vast tracts of land which once supported thousands of people and they're not there and therefore there's no community to exercise the new community right to buy by definition Now we would like to think that again of the power independently of communities wanting to initiate that I mean at one level it's very complimentary to communities but it's not the whole answer so we think they should have powers and it's partly in relation to the point that Fiona Mandeville has made that there ought to be the opportunity for the resettlement of land that was once cleared or indeed just the settlement of land over time and it's not always going to be possible for a community to do that so we think as part of the armory the government should also be thinking direct powers themselves to further sustainable development community I would be really keen to answer some of the points about sustainable development that were made in the earlier panel if you want but I'll leave that this now You can do in a moment we're trying to get as much out of this as possible and we have the stamina I hope the audience of the stamina as well because it is a complex matter and it's important to get as wide an effort an exercise of this so that we can get the points of view to review it in due course Andrew Prendergast first of all though Thank you I just wanted to come on a couple of points one was maybe touches on that issue around what represents sustainable development that was discussed earlier about needing to get clarity over what is sustainable I just wanted to make the point that communities acquiring assets acquiring land it's actually quite a hard route to go down and it's not something you do lightly or flippantly and the communities who do that do it because they recognize there's a very strong development need and so the idea that they might look at somebody's barley field and go well actually we could do something better with that is unlikely to arise because most communities are very happy if the land has been used productively and usefully it's only when it's quite clearly not being that they would actually go down the difficult route of trying to acquire and then run a business themselves and the other thing is just on that issue about whether ministers getting involved we thought it would be plunket foundation for be useful if ministers were to have regard to the international covenant on economic social cultural rights when getting involved in the same way that when considering an application in the same way that they already do with the community right to buy applications under the existing land reform and community empowerment Thank you Peter Peacock can you put on the record brief about sustainable development I've been listening to these arguments about sustainable development now for quite a long number of years actually but also particularly in the last week and this week again in relation to this bill and I'm afraid I just do not buy the arguments that this is vague and undefined if you go into looking at the concept of sustainable development just google it and you'll spend the rest of your month reading up on what is really a developed concept it's not a vague concept at all in our view and I'm sure that's what allowed Lord Gill in the court to say that when challenged that the concept was so vague as not to constitute law he said that he didn't agree with that it was a term in common parlance and it was readily understood by lawmakers and the courts and so on and we think that there's real strength in what you said in that but I think we've got to be careful to distinguish what's on the face of the bill and what exists beyond the bill by established government policy and you know there's lots of pieces of Scottish legislation that have now got the term sustainable development in it and it's nowhere defined on the face of the bill it's the best of my knowledge in all the land reform legislation we've been touching on today a community body to reform itself must demonstrate it is furthering sustainable development not defined in parts two parts three part three a of the land reform act the term sustainable development is repeatedly used ministers have to have regard and weighing up their decisions it is nowhere defined and Parliament as recently as June of this year approved an act of Parliament which came through this committee where again sustainable development made an entry on to the statute book and it wasn't defined so I don't see why now particularly in this act of Parliament we must find a definition on the face of the bill so I like Malcolm Coom I think that the bill as it stands in that regard is perfectly valid and helpful that it's not actually defined however go beyond the bill there are loads of established government policies and policy documents at both a UK and a Scottish level which set out much more thinking about sustainable development so there are parliamentary questions that have been answered by ministers which set out the various positions sustainable development is referred to in statutory planning guidance it's in the national marine plan and so on and so forth and also a lot of those documents route back to the UK shared framework for sustainable development which was approved in 2005 signed up to by the UK government and the devolved administrations in the UK and that begins to set out in more detail so I think that the key is not to worry about what's on the face of the bill in terms of sustainable development is to point people to what sits beyond the bill where this is all very clearly rehearsed and developed and as the court has said they actually don't see a particular problem with it if they don't have a problem with it because they are ultimately there to determine the outcome and educate on challenges of this act I'm not sure why Community Land Scotland would have a problem with it Thank you for that I'm trying to make sure that everyone gets a say but I'm also conscious of the time so Andrew McCormick Alex Ferguson was it or was it? No it wasn't so it was Pete Ritchie to come in and also Archie Rintol on the light to bring this particular section to a close so Pete so Andrew McCormick first Well a shout Thank you I think you actually contradicted yourself there Peter because you said well probably not but it doesn't matter you actually said you could spend a month on it this is the issue that our members have it's the vagueness of it there's nothing there defining it precisely there are interpretations of it but it's the fact that it's got a month's worth of reading on Google it's the one thing everybody will then interpret to what they want to mean out of sustainable development they'll take it from that and how do we take that forward we need to get something that we can say okay this is a sustainable development and we can work with that understand it, get both partners, your community your land owner, land occupier to get to understand it it's purely open to interpretation but if we can see something that we can actually pin down and know what we're dealing with we'll get there When we hear that point of view Pete Ritchie and then Archie Rintol Okay just at the risk of repeating myself I'm just concerned that we keep hopping over local government as the mechanism for compulsory purchase and for proactively doing the sorts of things you talked about Fiona I think if you want to repopulate the stress it's for the local authority to think part of its community planning process which has just been reviewed and renewed part of the democratic renewal we're promised for the next parliament for the local authority to say what's our local economic development plan what's our local spatial plan how are we going to repopulate those plans and if that means we go in and we buy some land and make some new crops let's do that but it seems strange to hop over the statutory bodies who actually have planning responsibilities economic planning responsibilities community participation responsibilities so I just think we need to to redress the role of local authorities there Archie Rintol Thank you convener I think one of the difficulties with looking at Lord Gill's statement in the park case was that that was made in a specific legal context for that case and it didn't necessarily translate into other legal context with this bill so I think a word of warning there about that I think one of the difficulties is yes there are definitions of sustainable development the policy memorandum here contains one which was made by Lord Sewell in the Sewell Commission there's also a definition in the local government in Scotland Act 2003 there's a Bruntland definition which is widely used there are various definitions it's not undefined but there are various differing definitions in one way or another so I think it really needs to be absolutely clear what definition of sustainable development the Scottish Government are using in these circumstances in this particular context and if that's not going to be in the Act itself I think it very clearly needs to be made in guidance notes separate from the Act I think we had a similar difficulty in debate in the community empowerment bill over the what's holy or mainly abandoned on neglected land and I think in the end with that bill, that Act there was pretty clear guidance on what ministers would take into account and what they would consider in making the decision on whether land was holy or mainly abandoned or neglected and I think something similar would need to be the case here I think there would need to be detailed policy guidance on what ministers how ministers will interpret this phrase and what they will take into account and I think the danger is isn't that then the first time which you were ministers decide that a transfer should take place to further sustainable development and you have an aggrieved landowner that landowner will go to the sheriff as he's entitled to do and it will then be the sheriff who will make the decision on his interpretation of sustainable development his interpretation of significant harm his interpretation of significant benefit and the courts can sometimes make surprising decisions on these things so I think it's probably better if Parliament itself makes it clear what it intends the interpretation to be Thank you for that Sarah Boyack had a point It was a quick follow up to Pete Ritchie's comment about local authorities being able to act on behalf of communities and I was wondering for us as a committee to log that that might be something we want to come back to as the third party purchase on behalf of the community whether we see local authorities as being a potential vehicle so it's as much to log that as an issue rather than necessarily going into it just now convener Thank you very much I'm going to move on to I think Angus will move on from that to the next part which is basically about common good land and Christian Alar has a question about that Thank you First of all I would like to ask Archive Rintol to explain the submission that he made and when he explained it maybe other members of the panel can give us the ideas about the common good land and how is defined in this situation and we know that passing the point what is put in this situation is to resolve a particular point but that particular point ended up maybe weaken a little bit what the common good land is about and the status of the common good land and maybe a miss opportunity of what common good land could be and maybe could be central of the land reform particularly when we talk about local authorities like Petrich he talked about we maybe ended up in a view that common good land will be extended in a lot more disposal of common good land and maybe no more a question of maybe local authority would like to acquire more common good land so we could maybe update that status and on the other hand maybe the register could comment on this not identified owner if there is no identified owner for any land should it be automatically put in common good land so there is a lot to talk about common good land I would like Archirinto to let us know about the reason why if 40 should be abolished Archirinto Thank you, convener I think that by and large local authority assets are managed by chartered surveyors and we have had another number of chartered surveyors who are involved in asset management who have expressed a view to RICS that there really is no need to have a separate class of local authority assets under common good it's over 40 years since you could create any common good land and whether it's common good land or whether it's land held through another the more normal term of land ownership for local authorities it's essentially all land which is held by the local authority for the benefit of the community which that local authority represents so it's certainly the view of many of those who are involved in asset management under chartered surveyors that there is no longer the need to distinguish between land which is common good land and land which is not Sarah Jane Lang I wonder if I could take my Scottish land and states hat off and make a comment on common good land as a private citizen and completely disagree with Archirinto on that point I come from the borders and for those of you who know the area there's a significant acreage and properties in common good ownership I'd just like to stress the importance of common good land to communities not just in the borders but others and I'd be really concerned with any provisions which weaken scrutiny of the misuse of common good land by local authorities and I say that as a former local authority employee who's involved in selling off common good land because that was common practice at the time I have seen time and time again local authorities mishandle in mishuse common good land within our communities and I do think that there is a need to preserve it going forward Peter Peacock I want to take this comparatively rare public opportunity to agree with Sarah Jane Lang but I can do so because she said she takes exactly as a private citizen but I think she's absolutely right about that it would be terrible to think about the coming of years of history at the stroke of a pen simply because it was kind of administrative inconvenient anymore if I'm interpreting what Mr Rintool said accurately because not only does it represent good history it represents an asset for the community in the spirit of what Mr Alhards spoke seems to me rather than talking about doing away with it it's how do we modernize it and make it relevant for today and how do we get more of it rather than less of it but that's the challenge It might prevent the committee from doing that, but that is one of the tasks for the Land Commission, to think on how you do that and put that on live to make it modern, and further make it more democratic locally for local communities to use their assets more effectively. We have different points of view in that, so the committee is here to review and do I think that possibly answers your questions, Chris John. Well, I'd like to thank the panel who have been very well disciplined and have had lots of chances to put their points over just now to us. We welcome that and we'll have a five minute suspension just now to allow a change of witnesses and stretch our legs. Thank you. Okay. We resume our discussions on the land reform bill and I welcome our third and last panel of witnesses today and I very welcome to our discussions to Rachel Bromby, managing agent for Coddory estates and to John Glenn, the chief executive of Baclw estates. Kicking off with the issues related to land rights and responsibilities statement, both of you set out extensive areas where you contribute to the common good and so on and so forth. To some extent, do you think that it could be emotive or ideological, this statement? How do you think the current proposals could be improved or do you think, in fact, that there shouldn't be such a statement? Rachel, first of all, perhaps? Thank you, convener. We welcome a land rights and responsibilities policy statement. However, we feel that this must have specific and very achievable targets in it. We do feel already that there are a lot of codes of conducts and initiatives in place that are helping achieve such responsibilities. One concern that we have is that specific legislation could become too prescriptive and actually prevent dynamism of management and land ownership and land management. I think already there's a lot of good being done by landowners and those in control of land, such as tenant farmers, we engage extensively with the local communities. We engage and welcome people onto the estate to encourage openness. We work with the Royal Highland Educational Trust to bring children onto the estate and explain more about where their food comes from and what goes on. We are keen to generate public benefit from private land and feel this must be for the benefit of all. We're a well-established entity, but we do welcome greater partnership and collaboration with local communities. Therefore, we would like to see this, but what is happening already must be taken on board. John Glenn, want to comment just now first? Yes, actually I think quite a lot of what is in this bill. It has the potential to do something quite positive if drafted the wrong way can actually be quite negative. I think if it encouraged us to have a conversation about what it is that we're trying to deliver and what are therefore the rules and responsibilities of both sides, then I think that's a very useful conversation to have. I think that the difficulty is that you have to start with a diagnostic of what's wrong today. That's a very uncomfortable discussion that a lot of people seem to want to run away from. Because when you look at the situation, there is practically no land use in Scotland that is not influenced by policy and subsidy. Culturally and behaviourally, and I'm generalising and there are always going to be exceptions, but we have developed a culture in a lot of rural Scotland which is like Pavlov's dog, basically whatever the next subsidy or handout comes in, we'll run off and chase that. We have squeezed out a sense of entrepreneurship as to what can we actually achieve. That's not part of the conversation that we seem to be having. There are some really meaningful conversations and we'll come on to consultations in my experience there. Conversations about the relationship between rural and urban. Increasingly rural is seen as an offset for environmental misbehaviour in urban. Whether it's in renewable energy or whether it's in carbon sequestration or whatever, and the mechanisms that actually affect the relationship between urban and rural are really what they should be. Are our policies on how we hand out the sweeties, are they aligned or are they contradictory? And how does it fit in with planning and housing, which also doesn't seem to be terribly well-aligned? So if by making this statement it encourages to have this conversation and actually have the courage to talk about a diagnostic, then I would be all for it. Well a conversation is something that can be perhaps debated or endorsed by Parliament. Therefore, it's a conversation that can go all the way through the country. So I take it that you would agree with those, though that line of travel. Absolutely. Rachel Bromby. I think one of the things that's not made clear at the moment within this part of the legislation as it's drafted is the impact these changes of the land reform bill might have, particularly on the likes of food production, on sustainability of existing farm and estate businesses, the potential impact of tourism, which is something that's not been discussed in great detail today, and also a strategy for future investment in rural communities, which is what makes Scotland such a diverse and interesting place to be. So we talked about them linking up with other policies and so on. John Glenn's made it clear that he thinks that planning and many other things as you have yourself, Rachel. But how should landowners who do not contribute to the common good as extensively as the panel would wish should be encouraged to engage positively? Because there are points of view John Glenn mentioned both sides. Well, the side of the good is to have that conversation. It's not about two sides in a story in that sense, but it's about good relations and bad relations. So how do we encourage people if we don't have a land reform statement that you can measure people's behaviour against? Well, I think we do want to encourage that. I think we've got to look at the practicalities and do a little bit of segmentation. There's one segment which is about a conversation about the current land uses and how they affect people's lives and whether they work or they don't work. And then there's a whole separate process about when you're seeking to change something, which usually involves set consultation processes and all the rest of it. So if we take the former, it is a vastly complex subject as to, I mean there's very little land in Scotland that only has one use. I mean it is a layering of uses and my experience is that we've not been very good at getting our own thoughts and the methodologies that we use to say, why did we make that choice before we change anything? Why did we make that choice to do that over there and this over here and what impact does that have? So we've got to do some preparation to sort of say it's not done in a black box, it has been thought through. So getting the space to do that. Now the second point then becomes, okay you do it, well who are you going to engage with and in what sequence? It's not obvious, I mean all around Scotland communities are very different. In this part of the country you might have very much more geographically defined communities in other parts of Scotland. The interface between what is urban and rural tends to get a lot more fluid. So the nature of communities isn't in some areas so easily identifiable. Then we've also got to figure out that, and if you don't have something to say, one of the problems I find is that we know when we try and do this, who turns up?  You'll find that they are of an age. They are invariably not involved actively in one of the land uses. So you don't get a lot of farmers turning up for a conversation about land use, even if it's not in mid-lef, February and in the evening. So you're going to get a section of a population that are going to have their own preconditions and their own interests. Then you've got parts of community that aren't actually part of a physical community. They are parts of a community of interest. Now of course they don't participate in that. They reserve their ability to protect their lobby by staying outside of that conversation. Some of these issues related to engaging communities in decisions relating land, which is a bit later on. Specifically I was asking there about how can we encourage some landowners to engage more positively? I think by giving them some positive examples. My experience would be that there's a population out there that can develop best practice. There's a population that would like to follow best practice but are looking for a bit of leadership. And yes, there's a bit of them out there that don't want to engage. But at least by going down this route it will become much more clear as to who are the ones that don't want to engage. And therefore you're much better able to target that kind of behaviour rather than tiring everybody with the same brush. Do Coder Estates have a view like that? I mean you asked us about discussing things like business, tourism and so on. We take that on board. But engaging with people, how do we encourage that dialogue? I think one of the points you have made is about those landowners and engaging specifically with landowners. But I think in this instance it's a wider context that you need to be looking at. Landowners do not necessarily have direct and first control of the land. There are a multiplicity of interests. Again, specifically looking at the likes of tenant farmers who have long-term control over a piece of land. Looking at other bodies, landowners are often subject to so much other scrutiny from the likes of SNH, the likes of CEPA, that we already have a great deal of legislation that we have to take account of. And therefore we may engage to a greater or lesser extent with communities. But there are things that stop us necessarily being able to take on board all those community points. And I think I agree very much and echo John's comments and I know we're going to come on later to communities. But again, we tend to see time and again that it's those with specific, sometimes personal interests who are looking to engage with landowners and land managers, not necessarily gaining the opinion of the wider community. Well, this is a high level statement we're talking about at the beginning of this process. And we're looking, you've agreed that it should be debated and endorsed. So the whole point is that it does have to look at some of these things. So I think, because we've strayed on to some other things, that it probably be a case that we should look at who will be discussing this and how you discuss with communities in due course. Right, the Scottish Land Commission is being set up and Dave Thompson has a question for you about that just now. I thank you, convener. It's really just to repeat what I've been asking other panellists and that's about the title of the Land Commission, whether a forum should be included in that. And also the public consultation aspects of the strategic plan, whether there has to be public consultation or should the minister just get it directly from the commission. Who first? John Glenn. Right, do I think that the word reform has to be in the title of the bill? No, if everybody understands what we're trying to achieve and the job description is written properly for these commissioners, they should do that. I would separate out what is an information exchange about the day-to-day and I think there is a need to engage on that because engaging with people when you don't want something is different to engaging with them when you want something on both sides. So I think my answer to that bit is no, I don't think you need the name, the word reform in there. I think it's implicit that this is about making things better. But reform doesn't mean, if you take the definitions of reform, it separates out from radical to evolution and reform is around evolution. It's a progressive making of things better than just if we do stick to the definitions. But I don't think you need it in the bill as a title. Rachel. Again, I would concur with John's comments. I think what we are looking at with the land reform bill and going forward with the land commission is about change and looking to make better. But with the word reform in there, it's a permanent emphasis on change and change for change's sake is not necessarily the right way to be considering this. Thank you. Further points, Steve? Just to follow on in terms of the membership of the land commission, the experience and expertise and I notice that there's a view that the agricultural holdings commissioner shouldn't be a member of the land commission that these two things are quite separate and they should sit totally separately. Could you just expand a wee bit on your reasoning behind that? John Glenn. Well, I think that the challenges facing agriculture are of sufficient import that they deserve to be treated separately. It isn't just about the relationship between landowners and tenants. There is a fundamental challenge facing agriculture and we need to do something. We have a generational change which is about to happen. And if we don't get the changes right now in agriculture in its broadest form, you are condemning the next generation to a pretty poor prospect. So I think it's of such import that it deserves a look of its own. Now, why might you lump it in? It depends on whether, as part of your objective is, you have this desire to see a fragmentation of land ownership. If that is the reason why you're lumping it into land reform, fine. Well, then say that's what it's about, but not everybody will agree that that's the right vision for agriculture. I am one of the largest farmers in Scotland. I will have a different view on what should happen in agriculture than probably just about everybody around this table. We need to have that conversation and we need the space to have that conversation. And I don't think muddying it up with other considerations does its service. Here, but you've got to say yes, Dave. A quick follow-up. Is there not an argument so if the agricultural holdings issues and all the rest of it are such a big part of it, that it's beneficial to have it all together and the agricultural commissioner feeding in to the broader land commission debates? If what we're going to have a conversation about is about land use, then absolutely. If it's predominantly about a redistribution of ownership, then I think it takes away from the real debate on agriculture, which is what is the future for agriculture in Scotland and how should it be configured and is it the same configuration everywhere in Scotland? Or does it have to be different? It's about getting clarity of effort. The other point about the range of experience and expertise within the land commission, I see you have views about including land management experience and so on, but we heard earlier from Peter Peacock of Community Land Scotland looking for people on there. There's a small number of them, obviously, half a dozen. You know people of vision and integrity, et cetera, rather than representing sectoral interests. Otherwise, where do you stop? What's your view on that? I would agree with Peter. I actually, as I've reflected more on it, actually what you want is people that are curious, that have integrity, that can ask the questions, that know how to make trade-offs. Now, some of the times you'll find them and people with experience from land management, some of the times you'll find them, they come from a legal background or whatever. The main thing is that they have these kind of characteristics and they have the ability to carry people with them. Because, you know, let's be clear. The land use debate, my advice to anybody going out and starting to engage on land use debate, is wear a safety belt and get some protective clothing. Because it's really hard. Just from your evidence as well that you feel that the commissioner should have a checks and balances role within their remit to review the effectiveness and consistency, the use of public funds by the Scottish Government, does, would that checks and balances role extend to looking at the use of public funds by Londoners? Yeah, I mean, I think what we've got as a nation is to see, we are throwing a ton of money at land use in its broadest sense. It's not very clear what we expect in return and whether the allocation of those moneys is consistent and coherent and are the parties that are handing out the treaties, if I can say it that way, actually are incentivising things that are coherent and consistent or not and are they consistent through time? So yes, I think it should have public scrutiny as to how we spend money and what do we get for it? Sorry, I was just going to say it. Would that not expand the scope and the work of the Land Commission quite significantly? Because, as you say, it's a big, big sweeties, I think, is the way I look at it. I think it would, but it's, you know, if we're going to make a real difference with this bill, what I'd hate to see is we go through all of this time and effort and, yes, we come out with a bill there, it makes not that much difference and we'll be back at it again in ten years' time, you know, because we didn't really address the real issues the last time and at the end of the day, you have to start, though, with a diagnostic which is what's wrong with it right now and why is it not fit for purpose as to what we're achieving and we're not having that conversation. Thank you. May I pick up on the points between the Land Commissioners and having a separate tenant farming commissioner? I think in experience at the moment there can be some conflict between landlords and tenants. I think that's very unfortunate and I think because of some of the current provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act, the way we look now at matters such as rent reviews and I appreciate that agricultural holdings is part of another evidence session but the way we look at the moment, we need to build trust between the two parties. We need to build better relationships, something that often we have with the community because we can have dialogue at the moment the way things are structured with landlord and tenant, it's a very adversarial situation that we're making reference to the Land Court and so forth. If we have a specific tenant farming commissioner who has access to good stakeholder involvement, good legal advice, good professional advice, then this will help very much improve those relationships. There's a lot of history in Scotland, a lot of baggage which I think we need to lose moving forward as you'll tell from my accent I'm not Scottish by birth and I come into this and to me it's quite surprising that this is the situation that we have, that there isn't this dialogue between landlords and tenants and therefore I think that with engagements with the likes of the RICS, with NFUS, with Scottish land and estates, with these involvements, again the RICS, the Agricultural Values and Arbiters, these people act on behalf of both landlords and tenants and they can give valuable evidence and assistance to a tenant farming commissioner that is perhaps currently lacking. Thank you very much for that. My understanding is that the tenant farming commissioner and commission will be dealing with all the tenant farming issues and what the commissioner would be doing here would be adding that expertise into the broader land commission discussions and debate. So, you know, as opposed to the land commission dealing with tenant farming issues. I think I'm right in thinking that. I think, you know, give an example where it does make sense. We've gone through an exercise of modelling every single tenant, every single farm in house or tenanted farm on the estate and we're working with SRUC to try and refine those models. Now, what does it tell us? It tells us and this is modelled on the basis of, you know, a top quartile kind of performance. So I've dehumanized, if I can put it that way, the debate or taking the emotion of the individual tenant out of it and just said, if I assumed a top quartile performance of that definition of a farm, does it make sense? What does it deliver? The conclusion that I draw looking at ours is that there is a significant proportion of our farms that don't make any sense. The question is, what do I do about it? They don't make economic sense, social sense, environmental sense. We'll get on to a debate about sustainability and I completely disagree with Peter on that. Economics, right. Do not make economic sense. All right. We're going to move on to information about the control of land and Sarah Boyack's going to lead on this. Thank you very much, convener. I want to pick on your expertise and perspectives as representatives of land owners and say what do you think the sanctions might be for non-compliance with providing information to the keeper? What do you think would be effective in terms of people who own land to come to the table? Rachel. I have to say that's a question I haven't given a huge amount of consideration to specifically about the sanctions. I think the first point I would like to make is that we do welcome the transparency of ownership. The ultimate sanctions which we've already heard about today would be not having the right to have your ownership, your title registered by the keeper. I think that the way we are going with voluntary registration, I think we will see an awful lot of land owners bringing forward voluntarily land ownership and I think it will be something that needs more consideration when we see who it is that is not willing to register land. I don't believe necessarily that that's going to be the likes of the states like Corder, like the Clw. I think there will be those perhaps with not necessarily the extensive numbers of acres under ownership, but those that have perhaps smaller, more strategic areas of land. I think until we see where the problem lies, it might be difficult to determine what the sanctions are. Thank you. I would completely agree with that. I think actually there's, with a good bit of leadership, there's actually a benefit to land owners. Because if you've got it on the register, it's a lot easier when you're doing individual land transactions and we're doing them all the time. But my God, when you're trying to do it off the existing systems, the research that you have to do to go and find the paperwork, it's not where we thought it was. The boundaries change. If you had it on a digital format on a popular land, it makes your own internal processes a lot easier to do. So actually I think the penny will drop for a lot of people to say it makes the business of running estates easier. There's a bit of a hump to get over and I admire my colleague from the Registrar Scotland's confidence about his timetable. It's complicated stuff. I mean, things are not where you think they are. If there's any further points, Sarah can come back. Okay, thank you. My question is specifically for Codder of States. I wonder, Rachel, how you Codder of States can support a full land registry given transparency of ownership and land use without a restriction on ownership to EU registered entities? Can I ask what evidence you can provide to support your statement that there are legitimate concerns regarding inward investment or existing investment? I think in the first instance, by stipulating that there should be non-EU entities, that suggests that any non-EU entities have very much nefarious intentions about land management and land ownership in Scotland. Conversely, it suggests that simply by being an EU entity or someone of a natural person is by definition going to be a good manager, an owner of land. I think that's something we've heard a lot about this already today, that there is transparency out there already about who owners are. So far as evidence about legitimate concerns about inward investment, I don't have any empirical evidence. I haven't prepared myself any studies or investigation in relation to this, but we know both anecdotally and from what is happening elsewhere that those who are heavily invested in Scottish land, if they're finding it more difficult to be ownership, will simply take their money and take it elsewhere. At the moment, landowners, good landowners, good land managers put a lot of money into the Scottish economy sometimes for very, very little return. From an economic perspective, to lose that would be, well, disastrous is perhaps maybe too strong a word, but I don't think it is. We're talking about significant employment, significant money supporting rural schools, through that employment supporting local businesses, local shops. And I would just hate to see that go. What evidence is there of that going to happen? As I said, I don't have empirical evidence. I haven't prepared any studies. I haven't conducted any specific research myself. We know this anecdotally. I know this from talking to other land managers, but I couldn't give you a specific example sitting here today. One might argue, well, they would say that, wouldn't they? Yes, but at the same juncture, you could say the opposite. As I said in the introduction to the question, just because one is an EU entity or a natural person doesn't mean that one has the best interests of the land or land management at heart. And to rule out others and their investment, I think, is short-sighted. Sorry, Conveyor. How do you react, though, to that stat that was mentioned earlier on, that 750,000 acres of Scotland's land is owned by trusts? Surely we need full transparency of who owns the land of this country? Speaking personally, Corda is owned in trusteeship. That is transparent. It's a matter of public record as to who those trustees are. Every time we want to sell an area of land, be it half an acre or whatever, when we engage solicitors, they want to go through the money laundering. They want to see utility bills from the trustees. They want to know who the trustees are. They want to see copies of the trust documents. Trustees are there as a sense check to individuals. They're there to provide, often, professional advice. Personally, I don't see trusty ownership as a problem. Trustees are guardians of the land. Trustees are guardians of the states protecting what is there for future generations. Dave Thompson wants to ask a short supplementary. Thank you very much, Conveyor. I'm intrigued at the revelation that if people are identified in relation to their ownership, when we get transparency and all the rest of it, there will be an exodus of money in the law run somewhere else. It just strikes me. I just wonder if that's the case, why do they do it at the moment? I mean, what's the motivation? Do we just have all these altruists out of the goodness of their heart? Look at Scotland and say, we want to pump money into Scotland and just throw it away because it's the right thing to do. It doesn't compute. To me, it just doesn't stack up. Are there other reasons why they do this? Do they have money that they want to clean up? What's the reason? It's just bizarre. I think your comment there about money that they want to clean up. I think the Land Reform Bill is not the place to be looking at that. I think that's something we had mentioned earlier. We didn't specifically mention Police Scotland, but these are things that are criminal activities and not something that the Land Reform Bill is here to detail. Why would people want to put money in here if transparency would actually stop them from doing it? That means they must have something to hide. Not necessarily no, but there tends to be often additional regulation that comes in. It's not the transparency that I have an issue with. What I have an issue with is the initial drafting of the legislation, and it has now been altered, which is what we welcome, is that if non-EU entities cannot hold land, then there is not necessarily the opportunity for them to invest in that land. Coda, which obviously is my experience, isn't foreign ownership. It is very much UK ownership, indeed Scottish ownership, and we invest in land because we believe in a dynamic rural economy. We believe in employing people. We believe in managing the landscape to deliver public good, to deliver what the public wants to see. Can I maybe see a little bit of clarification? We seem to be inflating two different things. There's land-held entrusts and then there's land-held entrusts in regimes that are not prepared to share information should a request go in. I'm not clear in my head, as you're not knowing where the source of the 750,000 acres is, that are we talking about just land-held entrust, or is it a subset of that, which says it's land-held entrusts that are registered in tax regimes that are not prepared to divulge information? I think it's much simpler than that. I mean, maybe I misheard earlier, but if restricting land holdings in Scotland to or excluding non-EU entities would lead to people taking their money out of Scotland, why? I think it's one more sort of billboard. Like so many of these things, if people actually, if they're really determined and they want to come and invest, they'll look beyond the headlines and make the decisions on the basis of the reality of the situation. However, sometimes, you know, how you put your banner up and say are we open for business does have an impact. Whether they were ever serious about wanting to do it and they're going to be turned off just because they've got a set up an EU registered company, it's very subjective. So I'm not overly concerned. As long as a genuine interest is actually going to look beyond a slight signal that they might perceive to say, if you're not one of us, you can't come here. We have to move on, I'm afraid. I'm reaching the communities and decisions relating to land. Alex Ferguson. Thank you, convener, but both of you will have heard the previous discussions we've had relating to this part of the bill, and I don't want just to sort of blindly repeat what I put to the previous panel as well. John Glenn, you earlier on intubated you had, in fact, you were already starting to say something about this, but I really wondered whether you had anything to add to the previous discussions that we've had on this or what your views on this are, and just give us your opinion. My experience on this is, and each type of consultation is different depending on whether it's a major change, the scale of the change, who the communities are, but I think we need to look at what's happening on the other side of the engagement. What I can guarantee to you is no matter which way you do consultation and engagement, it'll be wrong. You'll talk to the wrong person, you'll talk to them in the wrong sequence, and you'll get pilloried. I mean, I've tried every single which way at this, and every single time somebody has found a reason to give me a hard time because I didn't do it right. So, it's just a fact. Now, we also need to have a conversation about what is community, and in consultation processes should we have a mechanism that says if you don't engage in the consultation process, it's a sort of use or lose it.  Even within politicians, I'll get one politician saying well done this is absolutely what we want to do and another one's off to the press saying that's a conspiracy and I think we need to be a little bit real about what it's actually like doing it. I'll give you an example of community engagement. I had a group come to see me down in Canonby and they were the Canonby Residents Association, so I said well why am I engaged with you, I'm engaged with the local authority and they said well they don't represent us. I thought that was a democratic process, but I also engaged with the community councillors and well they don't represent us either. Oh, well who are you and while we're the Canonby Residents Association, I said well you have to be a resident of Canonby to be in the red. Well, we have friends of the residents of Canonby and I said who might they be and you bust them in, they're the NGOs, whatever it is, so it's rather more complicated than we seem to be making out in all of this. It's not easy to define what and should they be democratically based, the turnouts are really low. No wonder people say well they don't really represent us. Well you know if you only got a sort of 15% turnout for a community council and when you go along to them, look at the age group, are they really making decisions about what's in the interest of the next generation in economic development or are they making decisions to say actually I moved here because I wanted a quiet life and I don't really want anything to happen here. They're consulted and you know I think we've got to be very much more specific than this. Alec Ferguson want to ask anything supplementary to that. Well, I mean we talked about guidance and the fact that I think it's generally now accepted that people feel that the guidance should be endorsed by Parliament. So the process will have an endorsed set of rules if you like that people couldn't, I mean you say how do you go about the engagement and that will be, although I'm not happy about the fact that the details are still yet to be arrived at, evidently that will come in time. I get the impression that doesn't give you a lot of comfort that this will be a meaningful process. But I wonder if, can you give us examples or explain how you think meaningful engagement with a community from the state manager's point of view can take place, either of you? I think already and this has been alluded to quite great length and I don't want to be repeating some of the comments that have been made already. And again that John has just raised because we have come across these same points already. For example perhaps not directly answering your question but we have recently consulted on our new long-term forest plan and Sarah Jane Lang mentioned earlier sitting in drafty halls. We did actually have very good turnout to that and a lot of the comments were taken on board. But again I think there was a lack of understanding from the community and residents as to what that engagement was about. Because a lot of the points that were raised were general land management issues more interested in whether gates should be open or locked, whether there were dogfowling issues, day-to-day management that could have been addressed and are there to be addressed in different circumstances, rather than the impact on the landscape of a particular felling or particular planting species, this sort of thing. And I think this is where the guidance has to come in. Land managers, I'm not saying we're all perfect, we are all learning all the time. But I think we have perhaps a longer term view than some members of the community. I think often those that are within some of these communities, whether it be a community of place, a community of interest, often have very single issues, single issue views that they are looking at having represented. And are not looking at the strategic long-term land management issues that sometimes we are interested in and wanting their input. John Glyn, briefly. I think you've got to separate out between what is about a significant change and what is about a piece of communication about what are we doing on the day-to-day basis. Now the day-to-day basis takes many, many different shapes. Are you going to put out a guidance that will fit everything? Actually, I'd like to believe it's down to people and they should get on with it and talk to various parties. More complicated is the consultation process where you're actually looking to change something. So it's not the same thing. Does that cover those points? Very good. Well, we'll move on to the right to buy land for further sustainable development. Angus Macdonald, to lead. OK, thanks, convener. From the submissions that we've received from both Coddury States and Beclu States, there seems to be a mixed reaction to the issue of right to buy land for further sustainable development. Coddury States, for example, have welcomed the principle of community ownership, especially where a landowner is in breach of good land management and nefariously treats tenants and other stakeholders. However, Beclu States has stated there unclear why there is a requirement for another piece of legislation and where this fits with those already in place. So given that, how should the Scottish Government establish whether a landowner has breached good land management or has nefariously treated tenants or other stakeholders? So, Rachel, to start off with, I hope. Thank you, convener. One of the issues with the legislation as drafted, and again it's been mentioned at length today, is the lack of clarity within the bill on its face. Again, be it whether it's definition of what is a community, what is the definition of public good, what is the definition of sustainable development. I think where a landowner is actively managing the land, be it through farming, be it through engaging with tenants and communities, there is a way of demonstrating what is in the public good, what is in the good of dynamic, rural management. Where there is perhaps some difficulty is saying, yeah, this is a particularly bad landowner, what is the definition of that? And again, like sustainable development, one person's view, one particular interest group's view is going to be diametrically opposed to others. It is not my job here today to say how that is defined. My job is to ensure that Corder of States is managed to the best of my abilities, to the benefit of the owners of that land, to those who are in control, those who are participants. Again, tenants, as well as farming tenants, we have a large number of residential tenants. We provide an awful lot of housing and accommodation within the local community and areas and also jobs. From my perspective, I think a lot of legislation is not always good, but at the same time there needs to be what is proposed, there needs to be more careful thought and definition put into the legislation as enacted rather than into secondary legislation that there won't be necessarily an opportunity to consult on. Angus, yeah. Perhaps you explain our position on it. If compulsory purchase is not working, why not change that bit of legislation rather than create another one? I mean, that's really the basis of the point. We do have an issue with the definitions of contrary to Peter Peogh about sustainable economic development. Well, first of all, I'm not quite sure it always says economic. Sustainable development is that sustainable from environment? Is it sustainable economic without subsidy? What are we talking about here? It's not obvious. And if you're going to take something away from somebody, I think it deserves to have a bit more clarity. Now compulsory purchase does actually have some quite rigorous methodology around it now. If it doesn't quite fit, then maybe it needs a bit of adjustment. But I wouldn't just leave that and then create another one just because that one's a bit hard. I'd tackle that one. Right. Graham D would like a supplementary on that point. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to hear this. Obviously much of the debate has centred around bad land owners who are not utilising the land they are managing for the public good. I just want to explore briefly what about tenants who are acting in this way. And I wonder what your view would be of the idea of toughening up the certificate of bad husbandry, the provisions within that, to allow land owners to recover such tenancies, but only with a view to then passing the land on to non-bible units, I think, as you touched upon earlier, John, or to new entrants? I would be very much in favour. I mean, how many instances statistically have we had where a tenant has been evicted for bad husbandry in the last 10 years? Statistically, can it be right? I think there have been so, so few. Now, statistically, that can't be representative. So, I think there is a need to really have some objective criteria. It's going to be very contentious, but nevertheless, let's have a bit of courage. And if we're going to hold people to account for better behaviour, well, let's hold everybody to account for better behaviour. And I think it's a good idea. I couldn't agree more, both on your point. And with what John is saying, we're talking today not just about land ownership, but land management, those who are in control of land. And I would love to see a tightening of the legislation to those that are not necessarily managing the land sustainably, be that economically, from a biodiversity perspective, whatever that might be, I think that would be superb. But you would accept the rider that you didn't get that back to farm in hand. You got it back to issue to other tenants to make their units more viable or for new entrants. You would accept that as a criteria. Definitely. I'll make it very clear. I'm in the interest of seeing successful agriculture. If we meet the land use choice that the primary product is for agriculture, that's what we want to use it. I want to see the best agriculture I can performed by the best and most talented people. That's useful. Thank you. Angus, you've got a final point, I think. As you know, we've discussed the issue of significant benefit and significant harm with the other two panels. So I'll have to ask a question again. When considering how significant benefit or significant harm is to be interpreted, how do the provisions ensure that consideration will be given to the impact on the landowner and do you also feel that the provisions strike a fair balance between the rights of landowners and the general public interest in furthering sustainable development? Again, I think we should have clarity as what we mean by sustainable is that sustainable environmentally, economically, without subsidy. What are we talking about? The devil will be in the detail when you actually get into decisions that it's about trust. I mean, these are going to end up as judgment calls. Any further? A similar question to the one that's been asked of previous panels. Should consideration be given to providing for a direct power of ministerial intervention to buy land to further sustainable development if there is no community interest? If there is no community present, sorry. As long as there was a clearly identified framework of criteria by which that call would be made, the question is really, do you trust the ministerial judgment? What is the criteria of that choice? Because you'll have lots of different opinions. Do you cover all your points, is it? Well, there's also the issue of whether it's possible that productive farmland could be eligible for community purchase as the provisions stand and whether it might be possible that a landowner or occupier's interests do not align with the wishes of the local community. What would your view be on a situation like that? It sort of depends on what the current use of the... What is the landowner proposing to use the land for? I mean, if he's making, he or she is making a... They then say, well, but the community has got a better idea that we're into difficult space because then you're starting to interfere with the right of somebody. It's one thing taking it away for bad behaviour, but if actually they're doing something... In fact, they might even be doing it because they're incentivised by policy. I think you're in a different game if they're actually using it. It's not in your abandoned neglected kind of sense. This is a farmer who's got a field in Bali and the community wants to put up a table tennis court and whatever it is. Rachel? There's a couple of points I'd like to make in relation to that. I think one of the areas that is absolutely fundamental to this debate, and it was made very eloquently by the NFUS earlier today, is that sustainable food production is very, very important, and we mustn't lose sight of that as we sit here today. It's a lovely day, but I know from experience from our in-hand farming, from our tenant farmers that at the moment this is a particularly difficult time what with weather and climate and one thing and another, and we mustn't lose sight of that. Moving on from that, I think with community ownership and community right to buy, it has to be assessed for financial viability. At the moment there has been, under the existing legislation, a lot of community buyouts, but we don't know in terms of transparency how that is being funded, how that is working moving forward. Is that subsidised? How much of that is already taxpayer money, EU subsidy money? And I think again there has to be more thought given about what happens in the future. What happens once the community have bought that land? Are they then in a position to sell that on to a developer to someone else? And there shouldn't be the right for land to be forcibly purchased from a land owner, or taken away from someone who is in control of that land, whereby their remaining land is adversely affected. And I think that's something that has to be taken into consideration. It's useful to have indeed. I'd like to thank our witnesses just now because it's been a long... Pardon? John, going to see? Very last... As a note of encouragement, my experience has been when you get everybody aligned. Sadly my best experience started with a disaster, and the disaster was an open-cast coal mine. It would be nice to think we could learn the lessons and not have to start with a disaster. But when you get everybody aligned, it is amazing what you can achieve. I would say that as an encouragement. The question is, how do we learn the tricks of how do we get everybody aligned as opposed to setting them all off against each other? But it is amazing what you can do. It would be nice to not start with a disaster. I think the points are well made, and we've had a good variety of opinions in these panels. It's been most useful for us because as we build up a picture of this, we see the test that we need to put to see whether the Land Reform Bill actually meets many of these positive engagement things which we've been dwelling on in this last panel for quite a bit. So I'd like to thank Rachael Bromby and John Glenn for their part in this, along with the other witnesses that we've had today. At the next meeting of the committee in Wednesday, the 16th of September, the committee will take further evidence on part 10 of the Land Reform, Scotland Bill. We'll also consider two pieces of subordinate legislation. And I'd like once again to thank all the panels and the members of the public who've joined us today. Sky has hosted a major set of witness testimony that allows us a very large and varied insight into this question about the use and ownership of land. And I think it's vital for us to have that. I think it's vital for the community here to know that they're contributing through hosting this the ability of us to actually meet people in every part of the country and we'll be continuing to do this for the next three months in this particular phase of our work. So thank you all very much for attending and I now close the meeting.


Hello, Myself Dr. Vinay Kumar Gautam, Consultant Orthopedic and Orthroscopy Sports Injury Manipal Hospital Kharadi. Today I will discuss about the Sports Injury related to the any knee injury kind of thing. So, normal just will summarize about the knee. This is the knee specimen. There are a few ligaments. This is the medial side. This is the lateral side. And there are the inside. There are two meniscus, medial meniscus, lateral meniscus, ACL and PCL injury. So, usually the knee injury occurs with the contact sports or non-contact sports. And that can cause some kind of twisting injury to the knee. That can cause pain, popping side of the knee, inability to put weight on that knee. That causes inability to walk. The swelling will cause more pain. And that occurs because of any kind of injury. So, with any kind of knee sports injury, we usually do first x-ray to find any obvious fracture or not. If there is no fracture, then we will give the medicine rest eye spec application and followed by MRI scan if required any kind of instability. In MRI, there can be some kind of ACL tear that's quite common and meniscus tear as well. The PCL and the MCL lateral-culator ligament injury is quite less. So, in ligament injury of the knee, if ACL or meniscus tear, we do reconstruction of ACL ligament or threscopic. That's minimal invasive technique. And for any kind of meniscus, we always try to preserve the meniscus by repairing the meniscus if that is repairable. For ACL, we do all-inside technique. That's bone preserving technique. There is faster rehabilitation with less post-operative pain. For PCL injury or for MCL injury, that needs reconstruction as well. But in any kind of ligament injury, grade 1, grade 2, we can try the conservative management with the physio, medicine, rest followed by if required surgical intervention. So, usually just by doing the warm-up and proper rehabilitation, proper doing exercise before playing, before sports, you can avoid the sports injury. If it happens, just contact your sports surgeon. Thank you.


Good morning. I would like to start first with the common factors that are played in political and economic transition with respect, specifically reference to South Sudan. I identified eight common factors and I categorized them into two, three primaries and then five secondaries, secondary factors. The first three are injustice, inequality and when the injustice and inequality in the society leads to ethnic tension. And that's what the three I would say and they lead to violence, so you look at the violence as a secondary common factor as a result of the primary ones. So in South Sudan, the tension between two ethnic groups, the DINCA, it seems to be the largest, they are not necessarily the majority but they are the largest within the 64 ethnic groups constituting South Sudan. And the second largest is the NUERD and there's been conflict between the two where the NUERD feels or whether real or perceived that they are being denied since 205 but you can go back since the conflict started in South Sudan in 1903 where the NUERD felt that they should also lead instead of the DINCA as always leading. And after independence from Sudan in 2011, the DINCA continued to lead the country and the second person was from the NUERD but they kind of dissatisfied with that. So that led to what I would say violence. The second is the, within the secondary is justice where again that ethnic tension people feel that there's no justice prevailing in the society. And there's also institutional dimensions when you have weak institutions, whether institutions in the security sector, in the economic sector, in the justice sector, if they are weak then people feel that they are not being served. So that is a third dimension and then economic foundations whereby again access resources, certain groups feel that there's dominance or they are being denied to have access because of they belong to a certain group. And the fifth one in the secondary common factors is the capacity of the state to act or to respond, take preventive measures before the crisis is set on. So those are what I would call aid in the case of South Sudan. And let me look then at the, why recently about two months ago in July, this year after one year of peace agreement which was signed on 26 August 2015 and the government took time almost nine months for the government to be formed after that peace agreement. And then three months into the formation of the new government of national unity, conflict erupted again. And what I would say here is the way and it relates to the role of the actors, some most of the South Sudanese analysts, including the signatories to the agreement, felt that this particular peace agreement was imposed on them. And actually there was an earlier attempt because the conflict arose within the ruling party called the SPLM Sudan People Liberation Movement and this is where the conflict started. In 2014 through efforts of CMI with the ruling party in Tanzania and the ANC in South Africa felt that let us resolve first the conflict within the party. But unfortunately some powerful actors in the international community felt no, they better go for the peace agreement between the ruling parties outside the party and what I would say the powerful, the troika, that's the US, UK, Norway and they have a special invoice. We were supporting the negotiation in Addis Ababa while the party intra SPLM party arrangement was taking place in Russia and the South Sudanese themselves felt that we need to sequence first since it was a political disagreement within the party, let us resolve the unity of the party first. But then the other actors who were supporting the peace agreement being initiated by EGAT in Addis Ababa felt that this was a delay, would delay the process and not only that they felt that the SPLM was already a dead monster that must be buried and forget about and moved. Now so what happened is the this particular peace agreement ignored the call for unity of the party and it got imposed and called it agreement for the resolution of currencies in the Republic of South Sudan. And the way it was structured is built in crisis because you have the first vice president who is coming from another party who was fighting and given a number of ministries but not only that if he's outside the country he appoints one of his ministers to act for him. If the president is not in the country he cannot act, it will be the second vice president who acts. So you could see in-built conflict and that's why the agreement, the conflict erupted again on the 8th of July and the first vice president fled the country, there was a rift within his party, they replaced him but then the conflict continues. So in, I will not talk about other experiences but in Africa and especially in the case of Sudan and South Sudan I think external actors, mediators, they need to sit back a bit and try to understand the cultures of those in conflict and it is not because I'm sitting in the panel of the CMI but I thought the CMI approach which was also supported by Tanzania ruling party which because Tanzania, South Africa, they are not neighbors to South Sudan so there's no immediate conflict of interest. While they got countries that are the neighbors of South Sudan there's immediate conflict of interest in my view and so CMI approach in my view was the correct one because it addresses first the root causes in a set of addressing the systems, the symptoms of the conflict and so the responding to crisis in my view requires a correct diagnosis of the crisis itself. We need to understand what are the root causes or the common factors at play as I've already mentioned, the eight of which three are primary in the case of South Sudan because of ethnic tension is the primary factor at play and which also affects both political and economic because it's political, the fact that the people who are ruling belong to a different ethnic group, it is also economic because the group feel that they are denied access and need to tension. Thank you. Thank you very much and well for my part I have to say that even though this crisis may seem very different with each other they also have some common ground for instance the power struggle and struggle and fight for resources for instance in the case of Ukraine you can see also the struggle for especially in the energy sector. So Jochen Yassar do you have some quick comments on that? I think from my point of view is that there are core factors that are common across a number of conflicts and well Dr. Dan was speaking I wrote down the ones that immediately ticked my list of my experience of conflict and that was a number one and I will talk about it in my comments is weak institutions which is a fundamental absolutely fundamental reason why conflicts occur and why they are then difficult to resolve. The second one is definitely economic justice and in some cases a perception of economic justice not necessarily that there are terribly difficult different income levels that depends on the crisis but certainly it can be a concept of it. I think the third one is the capacity of the state to respond and prevent crisis by recognising the early signs and the possible direction that those early signs can take in terms of escalation and if you fail the Ukrainian situation certainly is if you fail to respond quickly to it to this escalation question then then you end up with a full-blown conflict as we have. Thank you. I think I would just have a quick note on a very fundamental in my opinion point that was addressed by my colleague Dr. Lowell and that is the issue of addressing the causes rather than the symptoms and this is something based on our experiences in the region is fundamentally crucial to basically take into consideration because it's much easier to follow the symptoms thinking that you're solving problems and then realising after all that it's simply you know has been a waste of time process and waste of efforts and the quick example is for instance now in the region where I come from in the Middle East one of the biggest problems is corruption so many people address this issue thinking that you know they have certain ideas and strategies to tackle corruption for getting that corruption is a symptom rather than a cause and in order to tackle and solve corruption you need to tackle and address the causes which so many governments have failed to do so far so I think it is very important to highlight this point this fundamental point and make sure that it's not only highlighted and taken into consideration at a hypothetical level but also within the level of you know implementation of any policy actions or strategies with regards to conflicts