Official Report 181KB pdf
I welcome members, witnesses, members of the press and the public who are here this morning.
My question follows up something that was in the Scottish Crofting Foundation's submission, but perhaps it is a question for everyone on the panel.
In the work of the expert working group on SSSI reform, it became clear that it was thought that compensatory entitlements should apply only in rare cases. Our point in the submission is that the mechanism for determining compensatory entitlements might be based on existing land management, which could have an impact on what people can do. We fully support the move away from large speculative compensatory payments, but we want to flag up that an issue might arise because people are changing their activities. We want a fairly flexible approach to compensation.
It would have been nice if I could have asked the NFUS that question. Do any of the other witnesses see that issue as a problem, given that the use of rural land is diversifying?
It would be fair to say that land management practices change over the years. I back up Becky Shaw's point that it would be unfortunate if we were to ossify practices that are changing for good reasons because we did not have the flexibility that is being sought.
The Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group Scotland criticises part 1, section 2 of the bill, which is on biodiversity, as "vague and unclear". The group talks about the need to create an approach to biodiversity that is based more on action points. Will you amplify on that point, which is fundamental to the bill?
We are unclear about what actually constitutes the biodiversity strategy. We have the document "Towards a strategy for Scotland's biodiversity: Biodiversity Matters!", but it is not clear whether that is the strategy. A strategy should set out not only actions and priorities for action, but a mechanism or programme to assess whether the targets have been reached and whether they have been effective. People tend to say, "That will cover the issue and we can just tick that box." The document does not strike us as containing meaty measures that can be laid down and assessed regularly to discover whether the biodiversity targets have been achieved.
That suggests that a wider Government agreement on targets is needed. Including biodiversity in the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill is a start, but the strategy ought to be a Government one. Is the strategy in the bill appropriate?
Absolutely. We support what is stated in the bill, but we want it to be effective as a strategy and to be implemented as such.
I take your point.
In previous evidence, issues have been raised about whether the provisions on promoting biodiversity will be legally binding on the Executive and other bodies such as local authorities. Are you content with that? Should organisations be obliged by law to promote biodiversity under the strategy?
We are thoroughly in favour of the general move towards thinking of land managers as environmental stewards and changing the scope of SSSIs to the stated intention of accolade rather than burden, but we flag up the potential for lack of clarity for land managers. At the moment, the situation is relatively clear and there are various procedures for SSSIs, but we are flagging up an issue for contiguous land and other associated land, as the application of rules to such land is more discretionary. The bill's intention is to move towards a more positive, transparent, user-friendly system and it would be a shame to compromise those worthwhile principles by introducing too much uncertainty. We are concerned about whether there is enough certainty and whether land managers know what might be expected.
There is also an issue with bottom-up and top-down approaches to designations. SSSIs are top-level protection and, if we start to extend that protection formally downwards, we will end up with nothing left to help those who are relatively near the bottom, who do not have anything particularly special, but still contribute a huge amount to nature conservation in general.
I do not know how much the broadening of the geographical remit of SSSIs will come about. I am thinking specifically of catchments, which the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group considered last week, in situations where the designated site is a loch that has been designated because of aquatic species but where the whole catchment affects the quality of the SSSI. The whole catchment could not and would not be designated as an SSSI, but the impact of activities in the catchment is relevant to the SSSI. That example shows how the issue is slightly broader, but there are ways of dealing with that other than designating a broader area, such as working with land managers in the area to reverse the problems that exist there. That is where such issues come from.
The FWAG submission makes a point about overlap with environmental schemes and you have just given a classic example of wanting to protect an SSSI within a water catchment area that is surrounded by good farming land. You comment in the submission:
What you say illustrates the point well. We are trying to say that the structure of funding at the moment is probably not effective in dealing with such issues. The rural stewardship scheme, for example, will exist for perhaps only a few more years, but the bill will be on the statute book for ever. In that context, the scheme is not particularly relevant in the longer term.
That is a valid point. We said in our submission that we are supportive of bringing 85 per cent of SSSIs into positive management. Obviously, that will require resourcing and the issue arises of targeting the resources that are available in those areas. I am thinking of a combination of targeting and good land management right across the country and also of targeting specific areas that are of particularly high value.
I draw attention to my entry in the register of members' interests, in which members will see that I am a member of the Scottish Landowners Federation.
That is a difficult question to answer. If I may, I will answer the first part of it slightly sideways from our perspective. The resources need to be sufficient to make the bill work. I cannot quantify whether the figure will be £1 million, £5 million, £100,000 or whatever, but it needs to be sufficient to make the bill work.
I support what Alasdair Laing said about providing public good. Obviously, there is a direct tie-in with reform of the common agricultural policy and how resources are used and targeted to achieve everything that we are trying to achieve on nature conservation and supporting agriculture in our rural communities. It is difficult to say how much we would expect the bill to cost.
I was keen to avoid asking you how much it would cost. However, I am also keen to find out your expectations about the resources that your members will need to make such a measure work.
Key to the bill is its change of approach to the management of designated sites. Instead of sending someone a list as long as your arm of potentially damaging operations, stipulating what they cannot do and then watching a site deteriorate, one would provide funding for active management measures to improve that site. If that means that an individual gains financially from delivering a public good, that is important, fair and as it should be.
Each of you has mentioned the need for greater transparency and better consultation. The SLF has highlighted the need for improved and accessible dispute resolution processes and the Scottish Crofting Foundation has mentioned the need for an increase in local involvement in the management of protected sites. By the way, I should for the record declare that I am a member of the Scottish Crofting Foundation—I am sorry that I forgot to do so at the start of the meeting.
We would be quite keen to see a structure or mechanism that would allow local management to be discussed locally. We are pleased that the bill contains measures that would allow socioeconomic considerations to be taken into account in the development of site management statements. As a result, we would have a site management statement that was a realistic representation of what SNH required of a land manager and what the land manager could provide within the context of viable rural enterprises. Such mechanisms should be strengthened. Many of our members say things like, "The land is the way it is" and suggest that traditional land management is the reason for the high value of the land, conservation-wise. Perhaps that kind of management is not perfect and certain things should be done; however, we are here to look after the land and would like to be involved in discussions about its management.
Essentially, I agree with that. If the bill becomes law, it will encourage more involvement because it will encourage positive management. For example, the bill seeks to encourage people to do things; it does not say, "You cannot do this or that". That in itself will encourage much more communication between SNH and the people who are managing the land. In that respect, I question whether arrangements should be formalised any more than that. After all, meetings for meetings' sake are not always very productive and can make people bored with the whole process.
It might need some clarification.
The issue opens up a number of lines of argument, but I want to press one point. Educating people about the value of land must happen at a local level and in public. Open debate has not taken place in the previous designation system, except where there has been some crisis in a community that has been faced with the setting up of an SSSI and therefore public meetings have had to be held. Do you agree that there ought to be a local mechanism through which matters can be discussed so that landholders and land managers, as well as the local population, have a clear idea about what is going on? Would such a mechanism be valuable?
Yes. I agree broadly with the first part of Alasdair Laing's answer, but, like him, I am not sure how formalised the processes should be. The bill's ethos represents a significant change from the slightly dictatorial top-down process.
I do not think that I was making a plea for a formal system, but I made a plea for communication. Consultation can mean saying, "Here's the answer. I am consulting you. Do you like it—yes or no?" We hope that the bill will mean a move towards communication and will not simply result in consultation in its narrower sense.
That comes through loud and clear in people's written responses. In the past weeks, I have gone out and talked to land managers and nature conservation interests and it strikes me that some proposals that have been made should be for primary legislation, but that others perhaps are for best practice and guidelines. Perhaps the minister should not just consider clarifying the legislative provision, but should think about new ways of doing things that we might want to encourage. Those new ways might not have to be identical in all parts of the country, but we should aim for a more transparent system and less of a top-down approach. There should be more discussion about how we want to protect our land. Perhaps the ministers could come back to us on that matter.
Earlier, I asked two questions. The second question was answered, but the first was not. The first question was about section 2(1) of the bill and replacing "may" with "must". Organisations have proposed to us that that should be done, as it would make the designation of the Scottish biodiversity strategy obligatory rather than optional. There is likely to be an amendment to that effect at stage 2 and I want to find out what organisations think about that. Do you agree with organisations such as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which agreed last week that the obligation should be underlined?
Yes. As I have said, there is a danger that that section of the bill will become too vague and too easy to sidestep. If "may" is used, that might mean that action will not be taken.
It seems that there is general agreement that there ought to be an amendment at stage 2 to clarify that.
It is more an issue for guidance. I am thinking of the one case that might ever arise. We were discussing this earlier. If someone had or had not done something because they were ill or elderly or for reasons beyond their control, £40,000 would be a hefty fine to impose on them. The issue might be one not for legislation but for best-practice guidance. In particularly difficult circumstances, a light touch should be applied. I am not saying that, in general, a land management order should be avoided; I am saying that there should be guidance to ensure that in extreme circumstances people are not penalised for something beyond their control.
I just find it difficult to imagine how that could be incorporated in guidance—I do not think that it could be in legislation; it would have to be in guidance. There would always be somebody who was not on the list. Perhaps we can discuss the matter further.
There is a detailed point to discuss about what kind of safeguards there would be. When I was reading the submission I wondered what kind of circumstances the Scottish Crofting Foundation had in mind. We could end up with there being a fine line; some people might opt out and come up with an excuse. It is about being fair to everybody, so that provisions apply equally wherever people are.
We do not disagree with the land management process, but we want to avoid a heavy-handed approach in circumstances in which failure to carry out required action is not someone's fault. We are talking about extreme circumstances, so perhaps such detail is not really relevant. I remember a regrettable case in which someone was penalised under animal welfare legislation, but he had been looking after his dying mother and his disabled brother and had not gone out for two weeks. Things had got a bit messy and beyond the person's control, but in that situation, a more sympathetic approach would have been helpful.
So you are looking for a plea in mitigation.
Possibly.
We will leave that on the record.
I declare the same interest as Rob Gibson.
Are you referring to the Lewis peatlands?
Yes.
I was not in post at that point, so I am talking about discussions that were held before I was involved. I understand that the designation had a fairly rocky start. However, in general, the crofting community is fairly positive about the peatland management scheme. I cannot say for definite how the process worked, because I was not properly involved, but among the people to whom I have spoken, there is quite a good feeling about the scheme. The step towards positive management has certainly been a bonus.
Mr Laing might have partially answered my question already, but I was intrigued by the strongly worded paragraph in the Scottish Landowners Federation submission that called for European designations to be underpinned by site of special scientific interest designations. Are your reasons partly legalistic and partly because of the obligations for land management statements that go along with SSSIs?
We want the SSSI designation to underpin the European designation because, at the moment, the European designation does not have the appeals procedure that the UK SSSI designation does. In other words, under the European designation, there is no recourse to the Scottish Land Court.
While we are on legalistic matters, I note that you are concerned about the removal of the word "intentional" from the wildlife crime legislation and its replacement with "reckless".
The concern relates more to the definition of recklessness. What is reckless to someone who knows something might not be reckless to someone who does not know something. A forester would be being reckless if he did something to damage an area of woodland that he knew was being used as a capercaillie lek but a chap out for an afternoon walk who did not know the area would not be being reckless if he did so.
I thought that the intention of changing the law was to capture the reckless person.
The issue of appeals being made to the Scottish Land Court was mentioned. Other witnesses have suggested to us that there is a question mark over the expertise of those in the Scottish Land Court, given the new range of issues that they will be expected to deal with, particularly in relation to the scientific basis of designations. In that regard, we talked last week about whether the environmental courts might be established. Do the witnesses have any views on the general matter?
Presumably, if the Scottish Land Court were adequately resourced, it could call on expert witnesses as needed.
We are happy that there is recourse to the Scottish Land Court for an appeal procedure.
The Scottish Land Court is required by the Scottish Land Court Act 1993 to have what are referred to as "agricultural members". Would it be valuable if an expert on the environment or on environmental law were to become a statutory member of the Scottish Land Court?
That could be important, given the complex nature of some of the environmental issues. We could not comment further on that issue as we have no dealings with the Scottish Land Court.
I would like to ask a couple of questions about wildlife crime. The witnesses are probably aware that some groups argue that snaring should be banned. What are your views on that and on the implications for the countryside of a ban on snaring? Also, should the bill cover the misuse of poisoned bait?
Snaring is an effective means of vermin control. It is widely used by farmers and crofters and by other land managers who are involved in the sporting scene. The Scottish Landowners Federation fully supports the controls on snaring that are in place, such as the requirement to examine snares on a regular basis. We would be very concerned if snaring were to be banned, because I do not think that there is any method of vermin control that could replace it.
Alasdair Laing has given us the SLF's response, but I want to ask Becky Shaw about the crofting perspective. How would a ban on snaring impact on your members, in particular on those who are trying to protect valuable crops?
I am afraid that I cannot comment on that. We have consulted in detail only on parts 1 and 2 of the bill, so I cannot tell you what the impact would be.
Perhaps I can tell you—and perhaps I should declare an interest, too. If crofters were not permitted to use snares, their ability to protect valuable crops at a vulnerable stage would be limited. SCF members will echo that view, particularly in places such as North Uist, Benbecula and South Uist, where rabbits are seen as vermin.
What about hedgehogs?
We will not go there.
We do not snare hedgehogs; there is another way of dispatching them.
We have covered a lot of ground this morning, so if members have no further questions, I thank the witnesses for coming and for answering—or attempting to answer—our questions. You have been very helpful. I invite the witnesses to stand down, but they are welcome to stay for the rest of the meeting. I will suspend the meeting for two minutes to allow the panels of witnesses to change over.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I welcome our second panel of witnesses. We have with us Andrew Hamilton from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in Scotland and Tony Andrews, who is the Scottish Countryside Alliance's chief executive. I thank the witnesses for attending our meeting and for their helpful written submissions. As with previous panels, I will not invite the witnesses to make opening statements; we will go straight to questions from members. It would help if people kept their questions and answers to the point.
My question is for the Scottish Countryside Alliance. Your submission raises concerns about the relationship between the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, the water framework directive and the bill. You talk about possible conflict between the directive and the bill. Will you give an example of what might cause such a conflict?
Our concern is wider than that. We are concerned about the joined-up thinking that will be required to bring together the access code, which is under discussion, the water framework directive and the bill. Those are complex pieces of legislation that have different objectives, so we would like to know that they do not clash. I refer particularly to the access code and the bill, because they have obvious potential conflicts. I was heartened to hear Rob Gibson talking earlier about education and the need to provide quality information to the public, land managers and users of our countryside, who are right to want access to our countryside in the way that it is drafted in the access legislation. If conflicts exist, they should be resolved now.
You are flagging up a possibility and you cannot think of a concrete example.
I can give you a concrete example of a possible clash with the water framework directive: when an SSSI, which is a limited area, is inside a river catchment. I understand that the water framework directive heads in the direction of catchment management, which means that any action that anybody undertakes in a whole river catchment—which, for a river such as the Tweed, is a large area of land—could impinge on an SSSI in that catchment.
The Transport and the Environment Committee dealt with the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill last year. The river basin management planning groups are now about to be designated and they would be the place to thrash out some of the issues that you raise, because those groups are meant to involve all the stakeholders in an area. I presume that the matter is for ministers to cross-reference.
The issue is more about making a cross-reference than it is an attack on the bill. We are asking for reassurance that such a cross-reference is taking or will take place.
If the water framework directive works as intended, I think that an holistic view will be developed, which, by definition, will take proper account of SSSIs.
That relates to the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003.
It is also important that the access code is consistent with that holistic thinking, which we applaud. We think that it is great that people are thinking holistically.
In its submission, the Scottish Countryside Alliance expresses considerable concern about the extent to which compulsory acquisition could apply to land. Will you expand on that? My understanding is that those powers already exist, but I am not aware of them ever having been used by SNH—they have certainly not been used by SNH with any frequency. Are those powers more likely to be used because of the new legislation? Why are you so concerned?
We recognise that there need to be proper methods of enforcement in the bill. We are concerned that the tone of the bill, with its overemphasis on compulsory purchase, has taken emphasis away from partnership and management agreements. We would like there to be far more carrot in the bill and far less stick. In the final analysis, compulsory purchase may be necessary, but there ought to be a transparent, consultative process. That should be emphasised, rather than compulsory purchase, which leaps out of the bill. We think that it has been given too high a profile, which spoils what is otherwise quite a good bill.
I return to the question of local consultation and discussion. The Countryside Alliance stated in its written submission:
We should not put all the emphasis on biodiversity. The countryside is too complex for that. Our countryside is a fragile environment—economically, socially and culturally as well as environmentally. No bill about biodiversity should ignore the socioeconomic and cultural aspects. We are not totally convinced that the bill takes full cognisance of those other aspects of the countryside, through which it has been brought into the wonderful condition that it is in today. It is admired all over the world, almost as a model of good management. Generations of Scots have managed the countryside, and we have biodiversity, which is why we are having this discussion.
You mentioned the condition of the countryside. Some of us would certainly take issue with you about the well-managed nature of large areas. Indeed, people such as Frank Fraser Darling described a devastated landscape. That definition applies to much of the Highlands and Islands.
I can only repeat what I said, which is that we must take into account the people who live in, work in and use the countryside as well as the biodiversity of the countryside. I do not know where the vision to which you refer of the countryside comes from, but I suggest that the people who live in and use the countryside are the best people to decide whether it is an environment that is desirable, beautiful and biodiverse. Many people would describe Scotland in those terms.
We can have it as best as we can. That is why we are asking the questions. Thank you for your responses.
I have a question for Mr Andrews about prosecutions. I am trying to get my head round the second part of the sentence that makes up the paragraph under the heading "Prosecutions", which states:
Sorry, I did not hear that.
I quoted the second part of the sentence under the heading "Prosecutions" in your submission. I am trying to get my head round exactly what that means.
It is on the last page.
It is the second last paragraph on the last page of your paper, under "Prosecutions".
Okay. Do you mean not the bit on wildlife crime, but the bit above that?
I am referring to the section entitled "Prosecutions". I think that I understand clearly what you are saying about nature conservation orders; your position is that in the bill the threat of prosecution is expressed too strongly. I do not agree with that position. I am trying to get my head round what the second part of that paragraph means. It is possible that I am missing something obvious.
Sorry. I was being reminded of the point.
Okay.
Are you talking about honorary bailiffs or about the full-time employees of the river boards?
Both.
I think that there is a distinction between them. The honorary bailiff network is probably open to question for a number of reasons, but we do not need to go into that now. As far as the bailiffs who work full time for the river boards are concerned, they are part of the management of our rivers in Scotland. They are essential and important and have rights of wildlife officers. I understand that they can undertake an arrest if they find somebody fishing illegally or contravening the rules of the river board.
So that I can be clear in my own mind, as far as the water bailiff system is concerned—I refer to both types of water bailiff—you do not believe for a moment that their powers are draconian or undemocratic.
That is the present system. I do not have a view on whether it is democratic or not.
I certainly believe that it is undemocratic and draconian. If I have understood you correctly, you do not have a position on water bailiffs but, on wildlife officers, you state:
We are talking about training. I have just been reminded that water bailiffs undertake a training course before they are able to do their jobs. We want to know that wildlife officers will have similar training so that they understand the law and how it applies to people who use the land. We are worried about whom they will bring with them when they go into someone's house or on to someone's land. We are also concerned about the basis on which those people are chosen. Certain organisations are often present when such inquiries are made and we would be worried if the system was not transparent and open. We want to understand why people are asked to come and the criteria for bringing them.
Of course, that is something that could be covered in wildlife officers' training.
One would hope so.
Good.
I completely endorse what was said earlier by the Scottish Landowners Federation and the Scottish Crofting Foundation. Snaring is a necessary form of wildlife and crop management. However, the Scottish Countryside Alliance is adamant that animal welfare is crucial, so the most modern and humane forms of snaring must be used. We are absolutely clear about that.
You mentioned heather moorland and how well it is doing in Scotland. In my constituency, we have lost 60 per cent of our heather moorland during the past 10 years; for me, that does not paint a positive picture. The land managers who own and operate the land are not taking enough care to maintain it.
I do not think that we have an aversion to CPOs. We have an aversion to the lack of transparency in the way that they are decided on and finalised.
There are compulsory purchase powers in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. As far as I know, those powers have been used only once, in a case in Somerset. They have never been needed—as Karen Gillon mentioned, they have been present as the big stick in the background.
We might be able to clarify that point with later witnesses.
Do you accept that the powers should be extended to areas of land that affect SSSIs?
Yes, I can understand that reasoning because places such as a catchment area upstream of an SSSI might have such an effect. However, an exceptional case would have to be made for that to happen. It would have to be shown that such an area of land was directly affecting the SSSI. The power should not be too broad; it needs to be limited in some way.
I want to dig a bit deeper into your concerns about the advisory committee on SSSIs. An SSSI is designated on a scientific basis and the advisory committee is focused on the scientific reasons for designating an SSSI. You seem to want to expand the remit and focus of the advisory committee. Do you not think that it would be better to leave it so that clear scientific advice underpins SNH's desire to designate an SSSI? The other matters that you are concerned about could be dealt with separately by an appeal mechanism.
We simply point out that the advisory committee is in effect the first point of appeal in the process. If someone wants to appeal against an SSSI designation or any aspect of the implementation or management of an SSSI, the first port of call is the advisory committee. I am concerned that that committee considers only the scientific viewpoint. We would like wider interests to be represented on the advisory committee.
My understanding of the purpose of the advisory committee seems different. I thought it was there to give advice on the scientific basis of designation.
It is clear to us that under the bill, the advisory committee would be part of the appeals process.
Yes, but it would only advise on the scientific arguments that underpin the desire to designate an SSSI.
Yes—that is what we are saying.
Wider matters would go through a different appeal process.
That would mean that appeals would have to go to another body and the process would become very long and laborious. If the advisory committee were beefed up, we think that such matters could be dealt with at the first point of appeal. We suggest that simply to save people time and lessen the amount of bureaucracy.
So you believe that some of the issues that we were envisaging would go to the Scottish Land Court should go to a different advisory committee.
Yes. Sometimes it is not a bad idea to put scientists into the real world and show them that there are issues other than scientific ones that impinge on people's lives.
Perhaps I can expand on the issue of the advisory committee. As I understand it, the advisory committee is not an appeal body; that is specifically stated in the policy memorandum. The committee will advise SNH purely on the designation of SSSIs, and such matters do not go to the Scottish Land Court.
So you still see the advisory committee as being purely scientific but having much more—
Yes—its role in the designation of sites should be scientific.
And SNH should be obliged to—
To be frank, it seems a rather pointless body at the moment.
May I push you on the question of the Scottish Land Court? We asked the previous witnesses about the expertise that is available to the court. Does RICS take a view on that?
The Scottish Land Court has experience of dealing with SSSIs and compensation cases under the 1981 act, although it is not so much the Scottish Land Court that does that as the Lands Tribunal for Scotland. A number of arbitration cases were referred to the tribunal. When it comes to valuation, the tribunal certainly has experience, from dealing with things such as management agreements, as to what payments should be made. That form of appeal has been slightly extended: the tribunal will now have a role in deciding whether it is reasonable, for example, to withdraw consents. I agree with the earlier comment that that will entail expansion into areas of expertise that the Scottish Land Court may not necessarily have at the moment. However, the court has in the past proven itself adept at taking on experts to give advice on such matters. It is a good forum for an appeal and I do not think that we need worry too much about the court not having the expertise. What we should worry about—I believe that the SLF said this earlier—is the pressure of work that the court will be under. The Scottish Land Court will deal with all the law on agricultural holdings, land reform and nature conservation. One can only make a plea that the court be adequately resourced. I do not think that, as things stand, the court could cope with the pressure.
When we were scrutinising the Title Conditions (Scotland) Bill, that very concern was raised about the capacity of the Scottish Land Court to deal with all the cases. However, evidence from the court suggested that it had lots of spare capacity, so perhaps we need not be concerned.
I am not sure that that is quite what I suggested, because, under the bill as drafted, the court has no locus in the designation of sites. I was simply saying that, if there is a form of appeal to the advisory committee over the designation of SSSIs, the outcome should be binding rather than something that SNH can discard if it so wishes. I am not suggesting that the appeal should go to the Scottish Land Court. We would agree that the court can probably acquire expertise, if necessary, but it is probably not appropriate to put to the court purely scientific matters that relate to whether a site should be designated or notified. Such matters should go to the scientific advisory committee.
My question is mainly for the RICS. You seem unhappy about the removal of compensation for landowners who, for perfectly valid business reasons, may wish to change the way in which they manage the land. You suggest that the bill could have a negative impact on the value of the land in question. I think that you would agree that there has been little evidence of a lack of interest in buying land in Scotland. Various land agents tell us that continually. Indeed, the gross overvaluation of land that is sold for status purposes disguises the fact that many landowners need to be more involved in managing the asset that they buy. In crofting cases, it has been proven that many buyers are totally ignorant of the regulations. Surely it is an extra piece of special pleading to suggest that the bill will have a negative impact on the value of land.
I hear what you are saying, but let me talk you through the basis for the suggestion. This is a point of principle. The 1981 act was Tory legislation. At the time, it was thought important that, if a landowner or land occupier, such as a farm tenant or crofter, had restrictions placed on them that affected what they did on the land and led to their suffering a loss, it would be fair and reasonable that they should be compensated.
We need clarification on that.
I agree with you 100 per cent. As far as the RICS and our members are concerned, we are wholly behind what SNH is doing. The whole move towards positive management—also known as natural care—is, of course, the way forward. Let us hope that it applies in 100 per cent of cases, but there might be 1 per cent of cases where it is not appropriate. The way to go—the way in which we should be managing land for conservation in the future—is to work in partnership with one another.
Does the committee feel that SNH has the resources to do all that? The Scottish Countryside Alliance's concern is that it does not have the resources or the expertise to propose, enact, police, judge and manage the land, which is what it is now being asked to do.
That is an issue that we will have to raise when SNH representatives give evidence over the next few weeks.
You seem concerned that, if there is a change of ownership or occupation, 28 days is perhaps too onerous a time scale for people to notify the change, and you have said that six months is a more realistic time frame. Why do you think that 28 days is too short?
That relates to a concern that we expressed about the draft bill. I was on the expert working group with the Scottish Executive, which took the issue into account. The draft bill said that all owners or occupiers must notify SNH of a change of occupation or ownership within 28 days or be guilty of committing an offence. As members probably know, if someone is in the process of buying or selling land they must remember a large number of things. To be fined for failing to remember to tell SNH about the change within 28 days seemed absolutely draconian.
It seems to me that a person is more likely to forget something if they have six months to remember it than if they have only one month.
That is a good point.
I will ask the same question that I put to the previous panel. What resources do you expect will be necessary to make the bill work?
They need not be vastly greater than they are at the moment. Not every piece of land requires positive management to ensure the conservation of the interest that exists. In many cases, existing management will look after it. I would be concerned if some sort of positive management were required and SNH were not able to fund it.
We interpreted Alex Johnstone's question slightly differently and thought that he was asking about the cost of implementing the bill. The bill goes into that issue, but it refers only to the bureaucratic costs of implementing the bill. We are concerned about the costs to the rural economy and whether those have been managed or even addressed. We are concerned that there is a hidden, unmeasured, unpublished cost that will affect rural communities. We are really worried about that. We think that the bill has a cost way beyond what has been put down on paper so far.
We will end the session at that point. I thank both witnesses for attending and answering all our questions this morning. Next week we will consider the bill further and will hear from another set of witnesses.