Rural Development Committee, 11 Dec 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 11, 2001

Official Report 251KB pdf

---

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Agenda item 3 is the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. No sooner do we get rid of one bill than another lands in our laps. That is a happy situation.

No one is happier than Alasdair Morrison.

Indeed, he will be involved with the bill on two committees as he is fortunate enough to be on the Justice 2 Committee as well. Oh joy, oh joy.

Members will have received a briefing paper on arrangements for stage 1 of the bill. We have been asked to report to the Justice 2 Committee by the second week in February. It is a tight schedule. Last week, I met the convener of the Justice 2 Committee, Pauline McNeill, and suggested to her a remit that this committee could happily take on board. I circulated the outline of that remit to members. The remit is to examine all three parts of the bill, from the specific point of view of the effect that the bill, as published, would have on the rural economy and businesses. The convener of the Justice 2 Committee and I were happy that that would be a perfectly acceptable remit for this committee. It would allow us to give a reasonably comprehensive report, which the bill deserves, in the time scale that is laid down.

I pleaded for an extra week in which to take evidence. The time scale now allows us one week for evidence on each part of the bill. In order to save witnesses coming back week after week, we want to ensure that, if they attended one week and had relevance to what we proposed to discuss the next week, we should also listen to what they have to say on that subject. We will try to stick to one subject each week, but will bear in mind that witnesses have to travel to the committee.

Members have received a private briefing paper, which suggests a skeleton programme. That is up for debate. It is intended to focus our minds on the approach that we take. Are members in broad agreement with the basic approach to how we take evidence? Are there comments on the focus of our evidence gathering? Have I got it right for once? Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We move on to witnesses. We must make our decisions today, because the first evidence session is on our first day back after the Christmas recess. We must get notice out to the witnesses prior to the recess. They will almost certainly be drawing up written evidence before the end of December. It is important that we contact them within that time scale.

On who we should invite on the first week back, I know that the programme outlined in the briefing paper is only a suggestion, but it would be of benefit to have people from different perspectives giving the committee evidence at the same time. I do not see the need to have the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and the Scottish Landowners Federation together. They have slightly different views, but they are on the same side of the fence. I would like us to have one of those groups and one of the enterprise people, perhaps someone from Highlands and Islands Enterprise. What is missing from week one—and I would certainly benefit from this—is a representative from a community that has exercised, if you like, a community right to buy. If we have those three interest groups at the committee at the same time, we might get through the work more efficiently and effectively.

I do not think that anyone has exercised a right to buy yet; I am not sure that there is one. Some people have certainly completed a buy-out.

They have exercised their rights to buy as a normal commercial exercise. That is my point.

I agree with Mike Rumbles. From our point of view, it would be useful to hear evidence from those groups. I am conscious of the fact that two committee members sit on both the committees that are dealing with the bill.

I go a bit further than Mike Rumbles and suggest that people and estates have been actively involved in buy-outs. One of those is the Stornoway Trust, which is the oldest democratically run estate in Scotland. The late Lord Leverhulme handed it over to the people of Lewis in 1923. There are other such communities in the Highlands and Islands, in Assynt and other areas. News about inward investment and the positive impact on the economy is going to unfold later this week. Stornoway Trust is the blueprint for other communities. It is not fair to concentrate solely on the Western Isles, but a community in Uig and Valtos on the west coast of Lewis bought their estate three years ago. Within the space of an hour, one can see the contrast of the old and the new.

The solicitor Simon Fraser could slot into the Justice 2 Committee's evidence taking. He is one of the foremost experts in community buy-outs. He has been involved in all the buy-outs in the past 10 or 15 years. I am relaxed as to which committee he appears before. Other members will be familiar with Mr Fraser's work. He could appear at the Rural Development Committee or the Justice 2 Committee.

I agree with another of Mike Rumbles's suggestions. Given that we are considering the impact on the economy, the Scottish land fund and the community land unit of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, which is led ably by John Watt, I suggest respectfully that John Watt and another colleague from HIE be called to the committee.

Thank you very much for all that, which was obviously well informed. My only comment is that the committee took evidence in its early days from the Stornoway Trust and from Simon Fraser. The institution and the individual had quite an input into a report that we drew up. Given the time scale, should we take evidence from people from whom we have already taken evidence? I am well aware that we took that evidence two years ago and I am open to argument on the point. I simply point out to new members of the committee that we have heard from some of those people, who seem to be the obvious candidates, already. However, I am not ruling them out.

We are talking along very much the same lines. We heard recently in the news about such a community in Gigha. I do not know any of the individuals who are concerned with that.

Simon Fraser is involved in that. We might get Simon Fraser to talk about all those communities.

Simon Fraser certainly has an encyclopaedic knowledge of the subject.

I suppose that he would be a useful witness if members are happy that he is the best witness to give the viewpoint of those who have been involved, either recently or some time ago, in a community buy-out. Mike Rumbles suggested rightly that we needed to hear from someone expressing that side of the argument. Are members happy that Simon Fraser would fulfil that role?

Members indicated agreement.

I endorse what Mike Rumbles and Alasdair Morrison said in its entirety. I presume that John Watt would give evidence in the context of the HIE community land unit to us in week one anyway. Simon Fraser might come along in his role as adviser to that body. I hope that they will both give evidence, as that would be useful.

In addition to the community purchases that have been mentioned, I mention those in Eigg and Laggan. We could invite written evidence from those communities. A community in Grantown-on-Spey is considering purchasing a forest, although that is in the open market, which raises other issues.

I hope that we can write to all the communities that have exercised the right to buy. There are not so many of them that that would be too difficult a task. We could only gain by asking them for evidence of their experience. I do not imagine that it will be possible to take oral evidence from everyone, but it might be possible to take oral evidence from some communities. I would welcome that.

I think that the idea is that Simon Fraser would represent those groups.

We should hear from the communities themselves rather than from only Simon Fraser, although we should hear from him anyway, because of his legal expertise, experience and involvement. There would be value in getting at least written evidence and possibly oral evidence from communities. Perhaps we could invite written responses, weigh them up and ask whether any community would like the chance to come and tell us what their experiences have been like. After all, that is what evidence is all about; that is what it is for. It seems absurd to hear from all the usual suspects and none of the potential beneficiaries of the bill.

I support many of the comments that have been made. We recognise that land reform is close to the hearts of people in the Highlands and Islands, but it is also an issue for the rest of Scotland. The committee should bear that in mind. North-east Scotland does not have crofting counties because of an administrative cock-up in the 19th century, but many issues that are relevant to that area are relevant to the Highlands and Islands too.

For those reasons, we should also look for organisations and individuals from outwith the Highlands and Islands to speak to us. We have visited the Forest of Birse, so we might not want to invite representatives from there, as we spoke to them in Deeside. Perhaps Scottish Enterprise should remain on the list and we should not follow Mike Rumbles's suggestion of removing it.

I agree with Fergus Ewing and Richard Lochhead. We should invite written evidence from all the community groups. Their first-hand experience would give us background. I declare an interest as a member of Birse Community Trust. We could invite Robin Callander, who is secretary of that trust, to submit written evidence, because the trust has an interest in the bill. Any organisation that we have previously identified should be able to write to us with information, but we should keep to one individual for overarching oral evidence.

I thank Mr Rumbles for that. I agree with Richard Lochhead that the bill will have an impact on many other parts of Scotland and will not affect just the Highlands and Islands. In my region, the south of Scotland, the bill will have a huge impact, yet the drive that is felt in some parts of Scotland is not felt in many other parts.

I would welcome a witness from the south of Scotland if we can identify the right one. As we have discussed many times, we must recognise that there are many different rural Scotlands. The bill's effect in each rural Scotland may be different. I am not sure who that witness might be. We must bear in mind that we have only one meeting for evidence on the subject. I do not want us to be overpowered by witnesses and unable to take concise and focused evidence. We may have to make hard decisions to achieve that end.

We could include a geographical element in our oral evidence taking. The bill will affect the whole of Scotland, not just the Highlands and Islands. The Highlands and Islands have unique land attributes, but we should have input from other areas. We could have someone to speak to us on non-Highlands and Islands issues as well as having someone from the Highlands and Islands.

The National Farmers Union of Scotland is on the list of potential witnesses. That organisation has a wide remit and covers north, south, east and west Scotland. Will the committee agree to take evidence from an NFUS representative?

We are still on the suggestions for week one. I imagine that the RICS or the SLF would give a Scottish perspective as opposed to a Highlands and Islands perspective.

Our problem, which Richard Lochhead is driving at, is that no one who is pro community buy-out in areas outside the Highlands and Islands is represented. It is important to have a representative from a community in the Borders or in the north-east, for example, who has attempted or achieved a community buy-out. Most famous cases are in the Highlands and Islands, but a community must exist that wants to buy ground and may be facing problems.

That is why I suggest that we obtain written evidence from Birse Community Trust. The trust is very unusual in the north-east. It bought the rights to the commonty and it has bought community woods and such things.

I return to the fact that Birse Community Trust's evidence was included in our report on fact-finding visits.

That is why I suggested written evidence.

Fair enough.

I am always delighted to hear from Simon Fraser, and the Stornoway Trust was a good idea of Alasdair Morrison's. To get a balanced argument, we should listen to arguments from the private estates. I was thinking of the North Uist estate—Mr Morrison comes from that island—which is a big estate of 70,000 acres. It is mainly crofted and its manager has worked with the Stornoway Trust and has connections with another estate, Amhuinnsuidhe on Harris. He is in an ideal position to give a bird's eye view of what goes on in those communities.

On the subject of the crofters' right to buy—

We are coming to that. We have not even got past week one yet.

I appreciate that we all want people from our own constituencies to give evidence, but one group that we might want to take evidence from is the tenant farmers. There has been some feedback from them that the bill does not contain much about their plight. If we choose to bring the NFUS before us, we could ask it to bring a representative of the tenant farmers.

We can ask people to give evidence only on what is in the bill. We are talking about the general principles of the bill, which do not include a tenants' right to buy—if that is what you are referring to. I am not saying yea or nay to the argument, but this is not the right place to discuss it. It is not in the bill.

Is that the correct interpretation?

I am not convinced that it is excluded from the bill.

Then I am sorry. You have read it in more detail than I have. That is noted for the time being. We will come back to it.

We do not agree on the general principles of the bill until we have completed stage 1. I am sure that that will be a matter of some discussion. What are the interest areas? There are sellers, buyers and facilitators. In each part of our review of the bill, as a matter of general principle, it is probably important that those three areas of interest are represented. We are nearly there. The chartered surveyors are the facilitators and the SLF are the sellers. We need the buyers in there. We will return to that as we come to other headings.

I am interested in Jamie McGrigor's comment about the North Uist estate, which I know well. Is it an estate that would willingly comply with the diktat of the bill when it is on the statute book or would it be proselytising from another perspective?

I have no idea. We want a balanced argument before we give any diktats.

I suggest that we get one member from the RICS, Simon Fraser and one representative from Highlands and Islands Enterprise, to give an overarching view. Everybody else could give us written evidence.

I am fearful that if we go wider than that, we will go so wide that we end up not getting proper evidence from anybody. It is almost easier to take three people like that, who would cover the broad agenda, than it is to broaden it out. Once we start broadening it out, I am not sure where we stop. The important thing is that we are satisfied that we cover each side of the argument and that we have a balanced witness list.

Will we have three days of evidence?

Yes. We are talking about the evidence on the community right to buy.

I was talking more about the crofters' right to buy.

That is day two. We will come to that in a minute, once we have day one sorted out.

To add to my suggestions, is there potential for evidence from a third person from outwith the Highlands and Islands?

There is no doubt that the RICS and the SLF would cover a Scotland-wide perspective from the sellers' point of view. We are talking about Simon Fraser from the point of view of community buy-out and those who have bought and about Highlands and Islands Enterprise from the agency point of view.

That means that there is no one from outwith the Highlands and Islands to talk about regeneration of rural communities from community buy-out.

I support Richard Lochhead on that important point. Scottish Enterprise is on the list. Perhaps it would be preferable to have someone from Scottish Enterprise as there is a local economic development aspect. Another point that I want to mention was the time scale. I assume that we will request written evidence from next week. It will cover the holiday period. The first committee meeting after the recess is 8 January and we will be working to a very tight time scale.

The Justice 2 Committee has already put out a call for written evidence. All the written submissions will go to the Justice 2 Committee. I presume that the evidence that is pertinent to us will be given to us as soon as possible after the end of December. We will probably get it on 7 January. The Justice 2 Committee will not have invited specific people to give evidence. However, I am sure that the people we are thinking of would want get in there as fast as they can.

Can I make a helpful suggestion? Could we swap week one and week two? We know who we want to speak to on the crofting communities' right to buy and it will be a much smaller gathering, so we could perhaps leave the community right-to-buy element until week two. That way, if written evidence was submitted that meant that we wanted to see someone specific, we would have time to consider after we came back from the Christmas recess and we could call that person to give evidence in week two. That would give us more scope to identify interested parties from other areas.

I have no difficulty with that. Are members agreed that we should swap week one and week two?

Wait a minute. Could you clarify that proposal, convener?

That would mean that in week one we will discuss the crofting communities' right to buy and in week two we will discuss the community right to buy.

In that case I would like to put my initial suggestion to the committee again.

We will come to that eventually. Let us stick with the witnesses that we were talking about for week one before we so helpfully turned it upside down. Members will note that there was the idea of having a general introduction from Professor John Bryden of the University of Aberdeen. I am told that he is the man to talk to on community right to buy. Do members think that that is a good idea or do we know enough about the situation to go straight into more specific evidence?

Could we not take his evidence in conjunction with that of other witnesses? We are all fairly familiar with the concept.

Scottish Enterprise is on the list and it is completely open to us to include Scottish Enterprise in the witnesses as representative of those involved in any buy-out outwith the Highlands and Islands. Richard, are you content that Scottish Enterprise would be a suitable witness to cover your concerns?

Yes. No one else springs to mind at the moment, apart from Robin Callander of Birse Community Trust.

We have already taken evidence from him.

Exactly. As long as someone is there who can give us a perspective from outwith the Highlands and Islands it will be a start.

I gather that the names put forward so far for the community right to buy have been Simon Fraser and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Is that right?

The RICS or the SLF—we have not determined which—Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise have been suggested.

I am concerned because the chairman of Highlands and Islands Enterprise is Jim Hunter and his views and those of Simon Fraser tend to back one side of the argument. I would like to see a balanced argument in committee.

It is very important that we achieve a balance.

I suggest that we hear from a maximum of four people and that we take them together. I do not think that we need an introduction from Professor John Bryden. Fergus Ewing suggested that we hear from him at the same time as we hear from the others. The witnesses would be Professor Bryden, Simon Fraser, someone from the RICS or the SLF and someone from Scottish Enterprise. I suggest that we take them together and move on. We should have a maximum of four witnesses; otherwise we will be here all day.

We need someone from Highlands and Islands Enterprise's community land unit—for example, John Watt. He can represent—

The enterprise agencies as well. Otherwise, we will spend all day here.

We should keep it at those five witnesses.

I agree with virtually everything that Mike Rumbles said, except that evidence from the SLF and the RICS would be significantly different.

I agree.

If we take evidence from the SLF, that would deal with Jamie McGrigor's point that there should be somebody to put the landowners' side of the equation. That undoubtedly is true. There should be somebody to put the other side of the equation. The RICS will have the chance to answer—[Interruption.] I see that the convener has a nosebleed.

Yes, it is not a pretty sight.

I will just keep going.

The RICS will have the chance to answer serious questions that have arisen in relation to—it is great to have a captive audience—the valuation of land. There is a lot of talk about general principles, but there is little talk about how much land is worth, how that value is calculated and the way in which the valuation process relates to the amount of money that the land can be used to produce by lawful means. There has been little discussion about that, but in my constituency I already have come across examples where the high or low valuation of land will have some odd consequences for the whole process, and which might result in handing over inflated pay cheques to some of our landowning fraternity. I am sure that is not the primary purpose of the legislation.

I can change the subject and talk about stamp collecting if you want, convener. Perhaps I will stop there.

We might reach agreement quicker if you do.

I am only prepared to appear in front of the committee like this because we are not on webcam. Sorry about this.

Are you suggesting that we should take evidence from the RICS and the SLF?

Yes.

I am in favour of that, because their evidence will be significantly different.

They are two different lines of evidence that we should not neglect.

I suggest that we invite the RICS, the SLF and Simon Fraser. We could expand and have six witnesses. We could also have a representative of a community buy-out from the Highlands and Islands or elsewhere; a representative of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, either John Watt from the community land unit or someone else; and somebody from Scottish Enterprise to represent non-Highlands and Islands areas. We could deal with six witnesses perfectly adequately.

If we are worried about time, surely we can just ask them to cut out their opening statements. I do not know why the number of witnesses is a problem. We should have the witnesses that we require.

Six witnesses is not a problem, but 16 would be.

We should have no opening statements and go straight to asking questions.

Can we ask for written statements that we can read before the meeting?

Absolutely. We will ask for statements of a maximum of two sheets of A4, and the witnesses will not be able to read them out on the day.

As this is our one shot at this issue, would it be worth keeping the agenda free for this item so that we can concentrate on it?

We cannot do that because we get statutory instruments that have to be dealt with, but there is a determination to keep the agenda as free as possible.

I make that point because we have always agreed that we should meet fortnightly, but we have achieved it only once.

We will not be meeting fortnightly during this exercise, Mr Rumbles, I can assure you. We have been given such a tight time scale that we have no choice. We will have to meet for the first five weeks of the new year.

I am not arguing that we should not meet every week. I think that we should. I am saying that we should ensure that we give this issue the attention that it deserves.

Absolutely. You have my word on that. The evidence could be taken in week two, which would be the meeting of 16 January. So far it is the only item on the agenda. There might be a statutory instrument or two, but the evidence will be the major part of the agenda. There is no doubt about that. Are members happy with that compromise?

Members indicated agreement.

I do not think that it is a compromise; I think we have achieved a balance of witnesses. I confirm that the decision is to have a representative of the SLF, a representative of the RICS and Simon Fraser, plus a representative of a community buy-out whom we have yet to determine. Can we do so now?

Simon Fraser will know who would be best.

He is best placed.

I have no great objection to that. We will also have John Watt from HIE's community land unit and a Scottish Enterprise representative.

What about Professor John Bryden of the University of Aberdeen?

I think we agreed that six witnesses will be ample, but I am always apt to listen, if members think differently.

We could ask for written evidence.

Indeed. We will ask him for written evidence. That is day two.

It has been agreed that day one will be on the crofting community's right to buy. Rhoda Grant said that witnesses are more readily identifiable for that day. We have flagged up the Scottish Crofting Foundation, the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards and the Highlands and Islands Rivers Association. I am not sure of the correct title of the Crofting Counties Fisheries—

It is the Crofting Counties Fishing Rights Group. The group is not mentioned in the paper.

Is that a group of people employed on the rivers in connection with the fisheries?

I think that it is a lobby group that was set up as a result of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. It opposes the fisheries buy-out. I am not sure whether we should take evidence from it because it already has a set point of view. Any concerns could be put forward by the fishery boards.

I agree with Rhoda Grant, but I want to raise a separate point about the crofting community's right to buy. Members know that Inverness-shire is one of the crofting counties, but the crofting legislation does not extend to Inverness-shire in its entirety. A group of crofters in Granton-on-Spey believes that it should and that they are not receiving the advantages that are being received in the crofting counties. It might be appropriate for them to state their case to the committee. Convener, you said that you are particularly interested in how rural life and businesses will be affected. There is an opportunity for them to tell us about themselves and argue that they should not be denied the same benefits as crofters elsewhere. I think that Hamish Jack is the leader of the group.

Do members agree that the main issue in that part of the bill for the committee is the right of crofters to buy fishing rights to water adjoining their land?

We need to consider the whole issue of crofers' right to buy. Crofters were concerned that communities could buy crofting land without crofter involvement as those in the communities would outnumber the crofters. Some of those issues have been tackled, but we need to talk about the crofting community's right to buy and the fisheries as part of that right—we must talk about the whole right-to-buy issue.

I presume that that issue can be addressed by the Scottish Crofting Foundation. Should there be anybody else to consider that point of view?

Speaking to the Crofters Commission might be worth while. It has a huge wad of information on crofting and the legal issues that surround crofting. It could tell us about crofters' current right to buy and how the bill would change that right.

I support Rhoda Grant's and Fergus Ewing's suggestions. On Fergus Ewing's suggestion, it is important that we hear from people who do not live in the crofting communities that the bill recognises. The bill aims to achieve certain objectives and we should ensure that it does so. We should therefore hear the views of people who are not directly recognised by the bill to find out whether they have a case for inclusion.

On Rhoda Grant's comments, the organisations that will give oral evidence should give us unique contributions. Some organisations that have been mentioned will perhaps come out with the same arguments. I am not sure whether the Highlands and Islands Rivers Association and the other body that was mentioned would be appropriate for oral evidence.

I am happy to listen to that, but I disagree with you on the Crofting Counties Fishing Rights Group—if it is a lobby group. If a group of people feel that their livelihood is threatened by the bill and see fit to set themselves up as an organisation, it is incumbent on us to take evidence from that group.

We should take evidence from that group, but must it be oral evidence? We will also take evidence from the Highlands and Islands Rivers Association and the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards.

We might not take evidence from all the groups. I accept that argument—I do not wish evidence to be duplicated.

We decided to take evidence from six organisations or individuals in the second week, but in the first week we will have only the Scottish Crofting Foundation, the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards, the Highlands and Islands Rivers Association and the Crofting Counties Fishing Rights Group. That is four organisations, which should be manageable if we can manage six organisations in the following week.

We also agreed to take evidence from the Crofters Commission.

That is still only five organisations and we will have six in the second week.

How would members feel if we asked the rivers association—what is it called?

The Highlands and Islands Rivers Association. There is also the Crofting Counties Fishing Right-to-buy Group.

Are you suggesting that group instead of the Highlands and Islands Rivers Association?

The Crofting Counties Fishing Right-to-buy Group represents river workers and managers.

I presume that the Highlands and Islands Rivers Association is well represented in the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards.

Your guess is as good as mine, but I think so.

The salmon fishery boards are statutory bodies.

Yes.

Therefore, they have a different position in the matter.

I think that they see themselves as representing the management of rivers.

I mean that the salmon fishery boards come from a different position. They reflect previous legislation, such as the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951, and were established under it.

That does not stop them from giving evidence to the committee.

No. All that I mean is that the salmon fishery boards should not supplant another body. We should hear from the fishery boards.

I suggested that representatives of an estate should give evidence. Is that still a possibility in this group of witnesses? According to the paper from the clerk, the remit of the committee is to take advice from people in the countryside who will be affected by the bill. If we take evidence from bodies, we must also take evidence from people on the ground.

Whom do you suggest?

I suggest North Uist estate because North Uist is a unique example of an island that is almost entirely taken up with crofts. The island will obviously be affected by a buy-out under the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill.

Forgive my ignorance of the area. Does it have a significant salmon river that might be affected by the bill?

North Uist has an enormous number of salmon and sea trout systems. Shooting, fishing and deer stalking also take place on the island. All the activities that will be affected by the bill are represented on the island. Also, there are 500 to 600 crofters, which is a large number.

Most estates are probably members of the Highlands and Islands Rivers Association. I am concerned because we have named six or seven groups, four or five of which oppose the bill. We have a duty to ensure that the oral evidence is balanced.

I accept that a balance is vital. However, we do not have four or five groups on the list who oppose the legislation.

As I understand Richard Lochhead's comment, he implied that the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards will include members of many estates.

I am not arguing with that. I think that I am right in saying that at the moment we plan to hear evidence from the Scottish Crofting Foundation. Forgive my ignorance, but do both the Scottish Crofting Foundation and the Crofters Commission have—

They are two different bodies.

I know that.

The Crofters Commission is a quango, for want of a better word. It is a statutory body.

However, you feel that it could make a relevant input to this part of the debate. I am happy to take your word on that.

The Scottish Crofting Foundation is what used to be called the Scottish Crofters Union.

Absolutely.

Will the debate on crofting communities' right to buy be restricted to the purchase of salmon fishing rights?

No—Rhoda Grant made that quite plain.

We need also to deal with the question of mineral and sporting rights. The organisations from which it is suggested we take evidence seem mainly to be those with an interest in fishing.

Are members content that we have achieved a balance?

How many organisations will give evidence to us?

We will take evidence from the Crofters Commission, the Scottish Crofting Foundation, the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards and the Highlands and Islands Rivers Association. There is room for us to take evidence from two more organisations, if members think that that is necessary.

What about the group that Jamie McGrigor mentioned, the Crofting Counties Fishing Rights Group? Members have said that that was set up specifically to oppose the bill. I am in favour of the bill, but I think that we are duty bound to hear from people who oppose it.

I understand that those people feel that their jobs are threatened. In my view, we would be found wanting if we did not take evidence from people who feel that way.

Can we take evidence from the Crofting Counties Fishing Rights Group instead of from the Highlands and Islands River Association?

The other option is to take evidence both from the Crofting Counties Fishing Rights Group and from someone on the other side of the argument.

I agree with Rhoda Grant's previous point. One of the debates about the purchase of salmon fisheries concerns the support that will be available to any crofting community that buys salmon fishing rights. Surely it would make sense for us to take evidence from an economic agency. As things stand, we will not hear from anyone to whom we could put questions about economic support, which is at the crux of the debate. Those who are opposed to the purchase of salmon fisheries say that the new buyer would not be able to maintain a commercial operation because they would lack economic experience, commercial wherewithal and so on. We need to ask an economic agency what help it could give buyers in that situation.

That sounds logical to me.

I understood that we could discuss a range of issues with all the witnesses. The Scottish Land Fund, the Highlands and Islands Enterprise land unit and Scottish Enterprise are due to give evidence in the second week. We should be able to ask them about issues such as fishing buy-out.

It is incumbent on us not to force witnesses to appear before us too often. It should be open to them when they are with us to comment on evidence taken in a previous week. We could ask the Crofting Counties Fishing Rights Group to give evidence to us in week one. Highlands and Islands Enterprise could also be given the chance to give evidence then, if it wished. That would balance the two sides.

Rhoda Grant asked why the Highlands and Islands Rivers Association and the CCFRG could not be linked. However, the two organisations represent completely different people. One represents river workers and managers, whereas the other presumably represents river owners. The organisations have different perspectives.

It is suggested that we take evidence from the Crofters Commission, the Scottish Crofting Foundation, the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards, the Highlands and Islands Rivers Association, the CCFRA—if I can call it that—and HIE.

And from Mr Jack.

Mr Jack?

I have mentioned him three times. I hoped that the message would have got through.

I am sorry. Would Mr Jack balance the CCFRA nicely?

Mr Jack would like to comment generally on the community right to buy. I do not think that he will talk about fishing.

That makes a total of six sets of witnesses. We should take evidence from Mr Jack and the witnesses from Highlands and Islands Enterprise should be asked to comment on that evidence when we hear from them in week two. Is that agreed?

Yes.

I shall run over that for the last time. We will invite the Crofters Commission, the Scottish Crofting Foundation, the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards, the Highlands and Islands Rivers Association, the CCFRA and Mr Jack.

I think that it is the CCFRTBG.

Whatever—we will sort that out. It is not CCTV anyway, that is for sure.

We now come to the week three meeting, which we hope to hold in the Loch Lomond area. We had always envisaged going to Loch Lomond to discuss the statutory instrument on the national park designation. We may still do that. At any rate, the committee may wish to take some evidence on the national park when we are in that part of the world. However, we will be there specifically to deal with access legislation.

That meeting would take place on a Monday, as visits outwith the Parliament do. The suggestion is that we meet in the morning to go to a site—we have asked the NFUS to suggest a suitable site in the area—where access problems can be identified. That idea is up for debate. It is suggested that we then move on to another site somewhere near Loch Lomond to take evidence. The suggested witnesses—the list is open to expansion—include the Ramblers Association, the NFUS and VisitScotland, as there could be an impact on tourism.

That sounds like a good idea.

Agreed.

A representative of small businesses that run outdoor activities could also be included. I am thinking of people who do canoeing or are climbing guides, for example.

Members will note that the paper also states that the Justice 2 Committee will be taking evidence from the Scottish Outdoor Recreation Network. On the other hand, that committee is also taking evidence from the Crofters Commission and the Scottish Crofting Foundation, so there is nothing to stop us asking the Scottish Outdoor Recreation Network to come to the Rural Development Committee as well.

I would certainly like us to take evidence from someone who can address the issue of access to water. That could be done by the people whom Rhoda Grant has suggested. There are specific issues about access to Loch Lomond for certain categories of recreational craft, such as speedboats, which I personally do not like, but that is another matter.

We are already inviting evidence from VisitScotland. If we invite witnesses from the Scottish Outdoor Recreation Network, they could cover speedboats. As I understand it, there is no access for mechanically propelled craft.

There are issues in that general area. As long as the Scottish Outdoor Recreation Network witnesses can address the issue of access to water, we should hear from them. I spent a very pleasant day with the Scottish Canoe Association, which took me to Loch Faskally. Lo and behold, when we got there we immediately hit an access problem, so I am pretty convinced that there are some real problems.

We have added the Scottish Outdoor Recreation Network to the list, along with the Ramblers Association, the NFUS and VisitScotland, so long as we are happy that the Scottish Outdoor Recreation Network witnesses can cover access to water. If they cannot, we will come back to that list again. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Did I hear you say that we will meet on a Monday afternoon?

The idea is that we should have a visit in the morning to somewhere where access could have a specific impact so that we can hear whatever side of the argument we are given. We have written to the NFUS for advice on where that might be.

Is that on the Monday morning?

Yes. After luncheon, we will meet at a site yet to be determined. We were already scheduled to have a meeting outwith the Parliament on that day and in that area. Loch Lomond did not seem a daft place to go. Although we will not be dealing specifically with the national park, that could become part of the agenda. If members are content, we will leave that issue and I thank you for bearing with us.

On a procedural point, will the minutes reflecting the specific decisions that we have taken be published before Alasdair Morrison and I attend the Justice 2 Committee meeting?

Yes.