Final Report and Policy RecommendationsAugust 2013

“Townfolk know pleasures, country people joys.”Minna Thomas Antrim

CCOOMMMMIISSSSIIOONNRRUURRAALL

SSCCOOTTTT

IISSHH

Table of Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Commissioners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Key Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

List of Policy Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1. Viable Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131.1 Rural Governance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131.1.1 Local authority level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131.1.2 Community level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1.2 Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141.2.1 Existing stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141.2.2 New stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

1.3 Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161.4 Broadband . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181.5 Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.Agriculture, Forestry and Land Tenure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232.1 Agricultural Holdings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232.1.1 1991 Act tenancies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232.1.2 2003 Act tenancies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242.1.3 Future tenancies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

2.2 Common Agricultural Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252.3 Crofting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262.4 Forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262.4.1 Forestry Commission and Forest Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262.4.2 Grant system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

2.5 Community Ownership & Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3. Sustainable Management of Scotland’s Wildlife Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . 313.1 Freshwater Catchments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323.2 Aquaculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323.3 Coastal Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333.4 Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

4. Rural Tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374.1 Cross-sector Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374.2 Funding and Funding Access Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384.3 Marketing and Other Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394.4 Quality Assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394.5 Local Authorities and Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404.6 Fiscal Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

1

I was asked last year by the Scottish Conservatives toconvene a team of experts to develop ideas from whichpolicy recommendations could be drawn. Our only briefwas to develop ideas which would make rural Scotland abetter place.

The report has taken over a year to complete, partly dueto the Commission being peopled by busy men andwomen but mainly due to the enormity of the subject.Each Commissioner had responsibility for one aspect,but each recommendation has been agreed by all.

Those invited to comprise the Commission wereselected in their capacities as leaders in their respectivefields, and not for his or her individual politicalaffiliations. We started from afresh. Clearly we could notignore where we are at present but there was no attemptto dovetail into existing policies or current thinking. As aresult, these recommendations are cross-political andnon-political, and are presented to the ScottishConservative and Unionist Party to provide guidance indeveloping its rural policy.

This report is not intended to be a research summary forspecific topics but is an amalgam of the opinion of sixindividuals using their own experience and those of themany witnesses who gave evidence both in writing andorally.

We did restrict ourselves to a degree. We haveconcentrated primarily on devolved matters, andtherefore decided that deep-sea fishing, as opposed toinshore, would be outwith our brief. We have alsosteered away from giving recommendations on anational energy policy, dealing instead with lower levelmatters such as energy efficiency and communitybenefit funds.

I would like to express my personal thanks to all thewitnesses who gave their views so willingly andsuccinctly, to all the Commissioners who gave up somuch of their time in their busy lives, but most of all toMarek Zemanik for bringing this all together.

Hughie Campbell AdamsonAugust 2013

INTRODUCTION

COMMISSIONERS

Hughie Campbell Adamson (Chairman)Hughie is a Qualified Land Agent (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors) who workedfor Knight Frank and Rutley as well as Strutt & Parker. He has run the family agriculturaland rural business for twenty years. His interests are predominantly in rural affairs,especially housing and tourism.

He has at various points in time held several voluntary positions: Member andChairman of Inveresk Community Council; Chairman of Association of Salmon FisheryBoards; Chairman of Esks Salmon Fisheries Boards; Chairman of the Angling andTourism Development Group, Chairman of Central Region and member of Executive ofSLF (now Scottish Land & Estates); Chairman of Angus Angling Initiative; Lord Dean ofBrechin Guildry; Lord President of the Court of Deans in Scotland; Chairman of Brechin City Football Club andDirector of Scottish Football Association (chairing appeals, referees, coaching and disciplinary committees);Director of Angus Marts Ltd.; Chairman Salmon and Trout Association-Scotland.

David FyffeAs well as looking after the family estate in Aberdeenshire (the arable acreage is farmedin partnership with Co-operative Farms under a contract farming arrangement and thegrazing is leased out to local farmers) David is a board director of Scottish Land &Estates and chaired the strategic working group that relaunched the landownersassociation in 2011.

David is a land manager representative on the Aberdeenshire Local Access Forum, andsits on the North East of Scotland Agricultural Advisory Group. He was a member of theRural Development Council, set up by the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Mr.Lochhead, which prepared an advisory document for the Scottish Government “SpeakUp for Rural Scotland” between 2008 and 2011. Prior to that, he also spent some time helping the ScottishExecutive Planners develop their planning guidelines for rural development in Scotland, published in 2005(SPP15). He created Scotland’s first Rural Business Centre at Fetternear as long ago as 1992 and which stillforms a key part of the estate’s commercial activities today.

David is particularly interested in the development of wider rural business opportunities in Scotland and newinitiatives to create thriving rural communities.

Andrew HamiltonAndrew is a rural practice Chartered Surveyor and a Partner with national land andestate agency firm Strutt & Parker, based in Inverness in the Highlands. He is themanaging agent for a number of sporting and agricultural estates and he has specialistinterests in rural valuation, land management, agricultural holdings, natureconservation, land reform and crofting matters.

He is an agricultural arbiter and member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. He isthe former Chairman of the Rural Practice Faculty of the Royal Institution of CharteredSurveyors and of the RICS Working Groups on Land Reform, Crofting and AgriculturalHoldings, and represents the RICS on the Tenant Farming Forum.

He was a Commissioner on the Board of the Deer Commission for Scotland from 2005 until 2010. He wasChairman of St. Cyrus Community Council from 2003 - 2007. He is a member of the National Trust forScotland's Countryside and Nature Conservation Advisory Panel, the Scottish Land & Estates HighlandRegional Committee and has lectured at Aberdeen University in agricultural & countryside law and estatemanagement.

3

Sarah TroughtonSarah is a Committee member of the Historic Houses Association for Scotland, Chair of theScottish Tourism Group, member of the Tourism & Commercial Development Committeeas well as Director of Scottish Land & Estates.

She is also Chair of the Scottish Country Sports Tourism Group, a group set up with publicand private partners to develop and promote Scotland’s exceptional country sports forcommercial letting.

In addition, Sarah is senior and resident trustee of Blair Charitable Trust and Director ofBlair Castle Estate Ltd. - the trading arm of the Blair Charitable Trust.

Sarah is particularly interested in historic houses and gardens, tourism, ski-ing and contemporary art.

Andrew WallaceAndrew Wallace is currently chairman of Rivers and Fisheries Trusts of Scotland (RAFTS)a network of 25 charities that assist in the management and conservation of Scotland’sfreshwater and coastal environments.

Andrew has been involved in Scottish freshwater and fisheries management since themid-90’s and has held a variety of positions including: director of the Association ofWest Coast Fisheries Trusts, director of the Association of Salmon Fisheries Boards(ASFB), joint managing director of the ASFB and RAFTS. He is also a Board member ofThe Rivers Trusts (England and Wales), of FishLegal which specialises in freshwaterenvironmental law and holds a position on the advisory board of the SustainableInshore Fisheries Trust.

Andrew has been actively involved in a wide variety of Government forums and initiatives relating tofreshwater and fisheries management and legislation. He also was previously a regular contributor (now onlyoccasional) on rural / freshwater management matters in a variety of magazines and newspapers.

Fenning WelsteadFenning has been involved in forestry and rural property for over 30 years and is widelyregarded as one of the leading experts in forestry valuation, acquisition, sales, andmanagement; and various arbitration matters.

He has acted for a wide range of clients ranging from the Forestry Commission,Pension Funds and numerous Private Forestry Owners, principally in Scotland andNorthern England but he operates throughout the UK and in France.

His ecological background has served him well in matters relating to the currentenvironmental climate.

Fenning is a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Foresters and their current President. In addition, he is aFellow of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and is a Registered Valuer; undertaking forestryvaluations on a regular basis for government bodies, institutes, private companies and individuals.

4

KEY MESSAGES

Statistics draw an interesting and indeed mixedpicture of rural Scotland. The Scottish Government'sUrban Rural Classification defines rural areas assettlements with a population of less than 3,000. Itthen further divides rural Scotland into accessiblerural areas (within a 30 minute drive of a settlementwith a population over 10,000) and remote ruralareas (more than a 30 minute drive). Based on thisclassification, rural Scotland has a population ofaround 950,000 people. Rural Scotland also makesup as much as 94% of Scotland’s land area, with69% classified as remote rural1.

Rural Scotland overall has a faster rising populationthan the rest of Scotland, but also has a much lowerpercentage of people in lower age bands, with highpercentages of people in pension age. It has lowerunemployment rates, but over half of workers livingin accessible rural areas commute to a non-ruralarea to work. Rural Scotland also has a muchgreater dependency on primary industries andtourism. It has a higher percentage of householdswith a net income of over £20,000, but it also has ahigher rate of households in fuel poverty2.

We all want to see rural Scotland flourish and wewere tasked with developing policies to achieve this.We must appreciate the unique problems thecountryside faces, but also build on its advantages.We must also acknowledge the inherent tensionsrural policymakers have to tackle.

The Rural Commission opened its consultationdocument by asking one fundamental question:“what do we want from our land resource?”

We consulted a long list of interest groups, each ofwhich made a compelling case for their ownagenda. We have seen evidence of policy conflictsbetween different levels of government, we haveheard of tensions between various rural sectors andwe have experienced misaligned policy-makingemphasising the urban-rural divide.

Equally, we have seen encouraging examples oforiginal thinking in the face of shrinking funding,instances of cooperation between businesscompetitors and of communities coming togetherand working with landowners and electedrepresentatives towards a common goal.

This then is the greatest challenge for policy-makers: the need to pursue social, economic and environmental objectives in the spirit ofcooperation, not of competition. It requires the

rejection of narrow parochial views and theadoption of the bigger picture.

Nowhere is this more pertinent than in land use. Werecognised immediately that of the many uses ofland, none should in policy terms have precedenceover another. We must make best use or uses ofevery piece of land in the context of society,economy and of the environment.

Our policy recommendations are rooted in thedesire to see more land used well, to see landmanaged for the benefit of the many and not thefew and to secure a sustainable, healthy, living andworking rural Scotland.

We do believe we have found a good set ofprinciples that have guided our policyrecommendations in each of the areas we lookedat.

Rural policy must be:

a) Progressive rather than stagnant

One of the obvious points from our evidencesessions was the impression that present policy-making is often stuck in decades-old paradigms. Wehave heard several witnesses say that if they hadthe chance to start from scratch, they wouldprobably devise a different legislative system orstructure, but they are constrained by laws datingback decades. This is entirely the wrong approach –the focus must be on outcomes without being tieddown by conventional thought.

Progressive policy-making does not only apply todrafting legislation, but also to recognising theopportunities of technological advances which havenow defined a whole generation. Throughout thisreport we will make the strongest possible case forsignificant broadband infrastructure investment,which simply must become the top priority.

We have also seen that policy is too often guided byreactionary short-term goals, without proactivelong-term thought. This, of course, is not universal -some pieces of legislation have been drafted well(e.g. the 2011 WANE Act). We however recognisethat when it comes to, for example, dependency onpublic grant money, very little has been done torefocus policy in all areas. We are conscious ofSingle Farm Payments, for example, not being therein the long run and policy-makers need to startlooking at future options now – is there perhaps

1. Scottish Government - Rural Scotland Key Facts 20122. Ibid

6

scope for the introduction of localised carbonfunding (supporting environmental goals) to replaceSFPs (supporting social goals)?

Another area that was highlighted is conservation. Itis clear we need a more pragmatic approach toconservation and that there is a need for relaxingsome of the rules that may now be anachronistic.In this area, we want to emphasise the importanceof the bigger picture – why should flora and faunaconservation be Scotland-wide or even UK-wide? Itmakes perfect sense to approach the issue on anintegrated European level.

b) Localised rather than centralised

While often reduced to buzzwords, the phrases“community-led” and “community-focused” shouldbe at the heart of rural policy-making. We stronglybelieve that local knowledge should guide localpolicy. We understand that civic engagement (orsocial capital) is not something that can be forced,but we do believe that, given the power, localcommunities will step up to the challenge.

The last few years in Scotland have seen powercentralised even though the Scottish Parliament hassignificant scope to shift powers locally.Notwithstanding the current constitutional debate,we believe local devolution and communityempowerment should be the focus in future years.This should in turn enhance civic engagement overtime.

People living in rural areas can have a better senseof community and joint responsibility compared tourban areas. We have seen evidence of manylocally-led projects which did not need anythingapart from some guidance and little financialsupport. In the grand scheme of things, small start-up grants for, for example, community transportinitiatives or broadband have an exponentiallybigger positive effect on local people.

One of the most obvious sources of local frustrationis the planning system, which has consistentlycome up throughout the evidence sessions. Wehave outlined some proposals in relation to theplanning system, which may be radical, but wouldboth address concerns in relation to local decision-making being overturned as well as unlock thepotential of enterprising communities currentlyhampered by delays and regulations.

c) Co-operative rather than competitive

We have mentioned encountering competinginterests during evidence sessions in the

introduction. The countryside cannot be seen inblack and white anymore, cross-sector cooperationis absolutely crucial. Some recent developments inland use strategy are to be welcomed as landmanagement has to be integrated closely. This is arunning theme throughout this report. It is onlythrough cooperation that we can achieve informed,evidence-led decision-making.

Forcing cooperation, of course, can becounterproductive, but we do believe that policiesshould be devised that specifically incentivisestrategic development. There are great examples ofstakeholders across public, private and voluntarysectors working together, but this needs to becomethe norm. Providing public grants linked tocooperative strategies or “calling-in” powers ofbodies that do not integrate are some of thestraightforward options available. This has to gohand in hand with best practice sharing andguidance.

There is also a need for a closer integration ofpublic bodies themselves. There is evidence ofduplication across agencies, especially in grantprovision. While this is understandable given thehistorical context, there is scope for theharmonisation of some of the streams and the helpavailable when accessing them. We also recognisethat while there are good reasons for keeping themseparate, closer cooperation between SEPA and SNHshould be pursued, perhaps in the form of aregularly convened joint board.

d) Reliant on independent rather than publicfunding

We always aimed to ground this report in reality,without basing our policy recommendations onunrealistic levels of public spending. Throughoutthe document we emphasise the need to recognisethat present levels of public spending areunsustainable in the long run. This applies to alllevels of the public sector – Local Authority, ScottishGovernment, United Kingdom Government and theEuropean Union.

In particular, rural Scotland is certain to besignificantly affected by any changes in CommonAgricultural Policy (CAP), which will come regardlessof any changes to the UK-Scotland-EU relationship.

The need for more accurate targeting of publicfunding, a realignment of policy priorities and theopening up of independent funding streams willbecome crucial in the near future. The only way toachieve this is by innovation, close cooperation,best practice and waste elimination. Furthermore,

7

public policy-makers have to understand thatprivate investment will not pick up withoutconfidence – often lacking in short-sighteddecisions taken today.

e) Enabling rather than punitive

Throughout our evidence sessions we have heard ofthe tension between enabling policies and punitivepolicies. A case in point are recent changesintroduced with the aim of bringing emptyproperties back to use – either via an extra counciltax levy or empty property relief changes. Analternative approach would be offering discounts oncouncil tax or stamp duty if properties are broughtback into use.

Throughout our recommendations we argue thatthe focus should largely be on the proverbial carrotand not on the stick. The evidence seems tosuggest that punitive measures do not have thedesired effect and we believe fiscal incentives havegreater potential.

8

LIST OF POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Viable Communities

1: Encourage closer integration between localauthorities

2: Encourage the adoption of an Area Committeestructure across local authorities and providefunding to facilitate local coordinators

3: End the council tax freeze to restore localaccountability

4: Ensure the business rates system incentivisescouncils to promote business growth

5: Allow community bodies to take over assetsand services from local authorities

6: Conduct a review of Community PlanningPartnerships

7: Develop a rural-specific model for assessinghousing need in rural Scotland

8: Roll back empty property relief and council taxlevy changes

9: Introduce conditional stamp duty and/orinheritance tax exemptions for propertiesbrought into the affordable housing sector

10: Take steps to incentivise home improvements

11: Conduct a mapping of energy efficiency issuesthroughout Scotland and ensure a rural area-based targeting of the National RetrofitProgramme

12: Promote and introduce council tax and stampduty incentives for energy efficiency measures

13: Carefully monitor progress on energy efficiencybefore introducing renting restrictions

14: Introduce provisions allowing rural tenants toopt-out of the EPC renting restrictions

15: Commission the Rural Housing Service toproduce a rural affordable housing guide forlocal communities

16: Simplify legislative provisions for the long termleasing of land by community trusts

17: Housing grant funding should be opened up toprivate and community landowners

18: A proportion of housing grant funding shouldbe directed at renovations

19: Planning fee setting should be fully devolved tolocal authorities, with a central cap set at£250,000

20: Public Local Inquiries should be the normduring call-ins as well as appeals

21: Encourage the extension of schemes ofdelegation

22: Better align Strategic and Local DevelopmentPlans with Scottish Planning Policy

23: Improve local consultation during thedevelopment of Strategic and LocalDevelopment Plans

24: Spread information and encourage the use ofrural housing exception sites

25: Legislate to allow community bodies to opt-outof the planning system and createNeighbourhood Planning Authorities

26: Share best practice and provide guidance on thebest use of Community Benefit Funds

27: Encourage top-slicing of Community BenefitFunds to reinvest in local energy efficiencymeasures

28: Rural broadband delivery has to become anabsolute priority and focus of policy-making atall levels of government

29: Public investment in broadband should betargeted to rural areas, with superfast-citiesfunding diverted there

30: A Universal Service Obligation should beintroduced for broadband delivery

31: Double the Community Broadband Scotlandfund and focus on advice and guidance

32: Open up rural broadband funding beyondcommunities to individuals, businesses as wellas third sector organisations

33: Allow non-commercial community-basedtransport providers to use rebated fuel (RedDiesel)

34: Develop a national strategy on communitytransport and introduce a Community TransportCapital Fund

9

35: Extend the National Concessionary TravelScheme to community transport providers

36: Ensure the delivery of the announced electrictransport package and consider roll out beyondtrunk roads

37: The new ScotRail franchise agreement shouldconsider an obligation to install electriccharging points at train stations wherepracticable

2. Agriculture, Forestry and Land Tenure

38: Recognise that farming tenants and landownersshould be on equal terms entering acommercial relationship

39: Decisively reject Absolute Right to Buy

40: Legislate for statutory compensation to bepayable to ’91 Act tenants who choose to giveup their secure tenancies

41: Introduce “retiring farmer exceptions” and/or“new entrant farmer exceptions” into planninglegislation

42: Gradually phase out 2003 SLDTs and LDTsfollowing the introduction of freedom ofcontract-based Agricultural Tenancies

43: Introduce Agricultural Tenancies based on thefreedom of contract

44: Recognise and address the long termchallenges arising from CAP subsidydependency

45: Single Farm Payments to be converged acrossthe UK on a temporary transitional basis

46: Crofting tenure and grants policy should be re-examined within a social policy framework

47: Recognise the value of commercial forestry

48: Forestry must not be seen in isolation toagriculture and vice versa

49: Introduce fundamental reform of the state-owned and state-managed forestry estate inScotland

50: Ensure the retention of UK-wide shared forestryresources

51: Take steps to transform the ForestryCommission into a Land Use Commission

tasked with implementing the Land UseStrategy

52: Increase forestry maintenance grant support

53: Lobby Westminster to introduce a low tax ontimber sale profits and tax relief on forestrystart-up costs

54: Tie more grants to commercial activity

55: Open the Scottish Land Fund to providecontinuous funding for long leases alongsidecommunity land purchases

56: Reform Community Right to Buy provisions inthe Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 in relationto community bodies

57: Recognise that a willing seller must be the normfor community purchases and reject anAbsolute Community Right to Buy

58: Consider state ownership and exclusivecommunity use of land bought with public funds

3. Sustainable Management of Scotland’sWildlife Resource

59: Pursue a closer strategic integration of SEPAand SNH through the creation of a joint board

60: Recognise that there is scope for anamalgamation of DSFBs and FTs in some areas

61: Introduce provisions requiring DSFBs to adoptand adhere to an industry-produced Code ofGood Practice or face losing their powers toScottish Ministers

62: Legislate for statutory representation ofcouncillors and conservation agencies(SEPA/SNH) on DSFBs

63: Extend DSFB requirements to include a duty toprotect or improve the environment thatsurrounds freshwater fisheries

64: Legislate to include a DSFB responsibility fortrout stocks and develop a funding model thatcan combine private and public funds

65: Steadily decommission all Mixed StockFisheries, with appropriate compensation fromrod fisheries

66: Any expansion of finfish and shellfishaquaculture should be done under theprecautionary principle

10

67: Require individual farm-level sea lice statistics tobe published regularly

68: Require the salmon farming industry’s Code ofGood Practice on sea lice numbers and benthicdeposits to be mandatory, and failure to abideto be actionable

69: Steadily move towards closed containment infinfish aquaculture

70: Support the commercial expansion of seaweedaquaculture

71: The socio-economic benefits of a diversifiedinshore fishing policy should take precedenceover the short-term economic benefits ofshellfish trawling and dredging

72: Initiate a long-term inshore fishery spatialmanagement pilot in the Firth of Clyde toprovide a research base for future policy

73: Evaluate IFG performance against theireconomic, social and conservation benefits andconsider strengthening legislativerepresentation requirements

74: Consider the introduction of Coastal and MarineNational Parks across Scotland

75: Pursue a closer integration in species controland protection on a pan-European level

76: Species protection should be balanced andpragmatic and guided by the holisticenvironmental and social needs of thecountryside

77: Transform Deer Management Groups intoHabitat Management Groups with wider dutiesand responsibilities

78: Introduce requirements to produce habitatmanagement plans on a voluntary basis, butwith refusal included as one of the grounds forSNH intervention

79: Advocate a looser approach to protectedspecies licensing from SNH

4. Rural Tourism

80: Recognise tourism as an essential ingredient ofrural economies

81: Encourage cooperation between public bodiesand independent providers for both sectoraland geographical tourism groups

82: Promote a close working relationship betweenthe Scottish Tourism Alliance and VisitScotland

83: The tourism industry should respect thegeographical area it operates in and cooperatewith other interests – private or public

84: Encourage voluntary agreements betweenproviders (landowners), facilitators (touristoperators) and users (tourists)

85: Responsible access should be cumulative tocommercial tourist activity organisers and notindividuals

86: Encourage the creation of BIDs through theprovision of information and advice

87: Promote a closer dialogue between public andprivate transport providers

88: Facilitate a one-stop-shop approach to grantfunding advice

89: Introduce a standardised evidence-gatheringmodel across Scotland with collected datapublicly available

90: Clarify the roles and improve the coordinationof VisitScotland and VisitBritain in respect ofinternational marketing

91: Give preference to all-weather tourism andtourism that prolongs the seasons whendetermining funding and policy on local andnational levels

92: Refocus the Quality Assurance scheme onproviding advice, limiting the star rating toaccommodation

93: Adopt a light touch approach to regulation anda proactive desire to find solutions toencourage tourism development

94: Encourage a consistent application of regulationacross local authorities through closecooperation and best practice

95: Introduce VAT incentives for the maintenanceand repair of historic properties

96: Advocate the scrapping of Air Passenger Duty

97: Loosen the tourist visa regime and lessen theircost

11

Nowhere is the urban-rural divide more obvious than inbroadband provision across Scotland. Access to the internet hasevolved to being absolutely essential for individuals andcommunities, the public and independent sectors, for business,education, health care and leisure.

VIABLE COMMUNITIES

1. VIABLE COMMUNITIES

1.1 Rural Governance

1.1.1 Local authority level

Our Key Messages of this report stated a strongcommitment to localism and the devolution ofpower closer to local communities. We note withconcern a clear trend of reverse devolution since1999 in a number of areas, which has steadilystripped local authorities of power. While weunderstand the constitutional debate is set todominate political discourse over the coming years,the devolution of powers beyond the ScottishParliament is just as important.

We believe that while the current local authoritystructure is not ideal, any reviews or restructuring inthe near future would be too disruptive andtherefore undesirable. We also feel that there iscurrently little political will to pursue such a policy,although starting from a blank piece of paper atwo-tier structure might be preferable. In thepresent, closer cooperation, best practice sharingand service integration is something that should beencouraged across local authorities.

Some rural local authorities cover vast areas of landand we have seen how some approach this byoperating under an Area Committee structure.Aberdeenshire has been particularly highlighted asa good example of such a structure working verywell. We believe the success of these would depend,at least in the interim, on the appointment of localcoordinators who could facilitate interaction withlocal stakeholders including potential communitybodies.

Recommendation 1: Encourage closer integrationbetween local authorities

Recommendation 2: Encourage the adoption ofan Area Committee structure across localauthorities and provide funding to facilitate localcoordinators

Councillors, as democratically electedrepresentatives, have effectively lost all revenueraising powers following the introduction of thecouncil tax freeze. This loss of accountability andfiscal flexibility is a worrying development whichserves to the detriment of local decision-making.Recognising a fundamental difference between ruraland urban areas, we emphasise that the ability toshape and fund services according to local prioritiesis central to the principle of localism.

While the business rates system goes beyond our

remit, we do recognise the need for policies thatincentivise business growth and therefore localauthority income. The Business Rates IncentivisationScheme (BRIS) is a step in the right direction, butrecently concerns have rightly been raised over itsimplementation.

Recommendation 3: End the council tax freeze torestore local accountability

Recommendation 4: Ensure the business ratessystem incentivises councils to promote businessgrowth

1.1.2 Community level

Devolving power to local authorities, of course,should not be an end in itself. We believe thatpower should be devolved as close to localcommunities as possible. This does rest onlocal involvement and public policy cannotsimply conjure up “citizenship” and civicengagement. There, however, seems to be avicious circle that needs to be broken at centrallevel – a lack of real powers translates into alack of interest which is followed by a lack ofinvolvement which is in turn used as anargument against more powers being devolved.While this will require a period of adjustment,we do believe policy-makers should step in anddevolve powers to local communities.

The definition of “community”, however, can beproblematic in itself. Sometimes there are communitycouncils, community trusts and other communitybodies competing for influence and power in thesame area representing the same community. We doaddress this issue below in sections 1.3 and 2.5, butas an overarching principle we believe thatcommunity bodies, provided they are appropriatelystructured and sufficiently representative, should beaccounted for in the planning system in Scotland,giving communities unprecedented powers over theirareas.

We also note the recent developments at Holyroodin the form of the Community Empowerment andRenewal Bill as well as the Localism Act passed inWestminster. We welcome the moves that wouldallow communities to take over assets and certainservices from local authorities in Scotland and willbe pleased to see legislation pass.

We also welcome the legislative basis forCommunity Planning Partnerships in principle, butare concerned with its application in practice adecade after it was introduced. Research suggeststhat CPPs have not been successful in fulfilling the

13

ambitious objectives envisaged at the outset1 andmore needs to be done at Holyrood level to supportand guide CPPs.

Recommendation 5: Allow community bodies totake over assets and services from local authorities

Recommendation 6: Conduct a review ofCommunity Planning Partnerships

1.2 Housing

Housing was identified as one of the most crucialissues in many parts of Scotland. Depopulation ofrural areas is a complex phenomenon, but webelieve that housing provision must be the first stepthat will attract people as well as employmentopportunities back.

The provision of affordable housing2 in particular isof essence. We have heard of so-called “hiddenwaiting lists” and the fact that housing need hastraditionally been underestimated in rural areas.This is a combination of a lack of systematicevidence-taking and lower self-identification ofthose in need.

Furthermore, policy-making has traditionally beenskewed towards supporting urban and suburbanareas – it is, naturally, easier to hit housing targetsby focusing on densely populated areas of Scotland.This meant that funding was not targeted to ruralareas due to diminishing returns, but insteadflowed mainly to the Central Belt.

A big part of the problem is the ideologicalpresumption against the private sector for theprovision of affordable housing. Privately-rentedaccommodation has a more significant role to play inrural Scotland, with a higher percentage of private letsin rented housing, but policies do not reflect this.

Recommendation 7: Develop a rural-specificmodel for assessing housing need in rural Scotland

Rural housing policy, guided by viability,sustainability and affordability has to be at thecentre of rural regeneration. We include policyrecommendations which apply to existing as well asnew stock. We also include energy efficiencymeasures in this section.

1.2.1 Existing stock

Housing policy cannot depend on new housingstock alone. In rural areas especially, we have a

range of empty properties that could be broughtback or converted to be used as affordable housing.We believe incentives and not punitive measures areto be used to this end. The recent empty propertyrelief changes and additional council tax levypowers will likely prove counterproductive. Thefunding focus on Registered Social Landlords has adetrimental effect in rural areas, where traditionallyprivate sector providers have had a significant roleto play.

Recommendation 8: Roll back empty propertyrelief and council tax levy changes

There is a range of options for policy-makers toconsider when adopting an incentivising approachto affordable housing. In terms of rural Scotland, ithas to be recognised that private owners oftenprovide housing to families that would otherwisenot be there due to the small scale of such projects.Fiscal incentives that help rural private owners bringproperties into the affordable sector would have anexponentially positive effect. Stamp duty controltransferred to Scotland offers an opportunity tospecifically target rural development. Even though areserved matter, we recognise that inheritance taxalso disincentivises privately rented affordablehousing stock to be moved to the next generation,where descendants are often forced to sell propertyto cover the tax.

Recommendation 9: Introduce conditional stampduty and/or inheritance tax exemptions forproperties brought into the affordable housingsector

Linked to the above are measures that make iteasier for existing stock to be maintained, improvedor extended. The Scottish planning system changesintroduced in early 2012 removing the need forplanning permission for a range of works were agood step forward, but we believe there is scope togo further. Delving into reserved territory again,there is a clear discrepancy between new build workbeing VAT exempt, while existing homeimprovements are burdened with the full rate. Whilewe recognise the present fiscal climate, we dobelieve there is scope to introduce discounts,especially if they can be targeted at affordablehousing.

Recommendation 10: Take steps to incentivisehome improvements

Energy efficiency measures go hand in hand withhousing policy and we believe that reducing energy

1. Audit Scotland - Improving Community Planning in Scotland, 20 March 20132. In Scotland this definition has traditionally been broad and for the purpose of this report we define affordable housing based on rents charged below Local Housing Allowance rates

14

demand should be the focus of energy policy as awhole. For obvious reasons, energy efficiency issuesare a lot more pronounced in rural areas, with ahigher proportion of old stone-built properties. It isclear that investing in energy efficiency hassignificant environmental as well as social benefitsand the cross-political support for energy efficiencyis evidence of that.

However, we have encountered a level of frustrationwith the implementation of certain policies andwhile big measures like the Green Deal are to bewelcomed in principle, they seem to stall at the ‘onthe ground’ delivery stages. It also seems that thetargeting of energy efficiency measures falls at thefirst hurdle – we only have anecdotal evidence ofthe energy efficiency shortcomings in ruralScotland. While a National Retrofit Programme wasannounced in 2012, it is difficult to see how it canbe appropriately targeted without an “energyefficiency map” of Scotland.

Recommendation 11: Conduct a mapping ofenergy efficiency issues throughout Scotland andensure a rural area-based targeting of the NationalRetrofit Programme

One of the issues highlighted with the Green Deal,and public energy efficiency grants in general, is thelack of take-up due to a lack of information and anoverall suspicion of significantly disruptivemeasures. While energy efficiency benefits areobvious to policy-makers, these often do not trickledown to individual households.

We believe there is scope to not only step-up aninformation campaign, but introduce further fiscal“eye-catching” incentives that could improve thetake-up of energy efficiency schemes. While counciltax discounts already exist in Scotland, it has beenconsistently highlighted that these are not taken up.Furthermore, stamp duty exemptions or discountscould also be introduced to incentivise prospectivehomeowners to buy energy efficient properties andin turn incentivise sellers to make their propertiesmore attractive.

Recommendation 12: Promote and introducecouncil tax and stamp duty incentives for energyefficiency measures

The other side of the coin are punitive andrestrictive measures that have been announced on aUK-wide basis. The Energy Act 2011 includesprovisions that allow for renting restrictions forproperties that do not reach a set level of energyefficiency (unless all Green Deal measures havebeen implemented). The intention is to introducerenting restrictions from April 2018 at the latest

across England & Wales and April 2015 in Scotlandat the earliest, although regulations have not beentabled yet. We are concerned about the timeframeof the measures (especially 2015), which will likelyprove to be too ambitious, although we do supportthe proposals in principle.

We also believe the risks to the housing market aremuch more pronounced in rural areas of Scotland.Introducing punitive rent restrictions might make abad situation even worse, with even less affordablehousing available. The Scottish Government doeshave the discretion to lay regulations that set outexemptions under the Energy Act 2011 s56(1)(b)and we believe opt-out measures for rural tenantsshould be considered. The presumption againstrenting will remain, but since energy performance isreflected primarily on the tenants’ energy bills itshould be up to the tenant to weigh up the costsand benefits of renting properties – the tenantshould request exemptions, not the landlord.

Recommendation 13: Carefully monitor progresson energy efficiency before introducing rentingrestrictions

Recommendation 14: Introduce provisionsallowing rural tenants to opt-out of the EPC rentingrestrictions

1.2.2 New stock

As mentioned above, the provision of new housingstock in rural areas is more problematic due to avariety of reasons. Chief amongst these is theavailability of land and we do recognise this. We donot, however, accept the conclusions of some that amove towards community ownership is thesolution. This sits within a much bigger topic ofland use and ownership patterns across Scotland,which we deal with in chapter 2 of this report.

There are a number of measures that are availableor can be made available for the provision of newaffordable housing. Some relate to the planningsystem (e.g. rural housing exception sites) and arediscussed in section 1.3. Often access toinformation is the problem. It has been suggestedto us that the Rural Housing Service should becommissioned to produce a guide outlining thedifferent options communities have for the deliveryof affordable housing. A very brief guide existsonline already, but this could be expanded on,printed, made available and promoted across ruralScotland.

Recommendation 15: Commission the RuralHousing Service to produce a rural affordablehousing guide for local communities

15

There is no reason why making land available foraffordable housing should immediately be linkedwith ownership issues. Legislation in Scotlandalready provides measures that allow communitytrusts to lease land long-term for the provision ofaffordable housing. There is, however, anunnecessary complexity in which Scottish Ministersmust designate community trusts as Rural HousingBodies to allow them to enter long leases – aprocess that requires secondary legislation passedby the Scottish Parliament. This is understandablefor the provision of Rural Housing Burdens, butthese should be kept separate from long leases.

Recommendation 16: Simplify legislativeprovisions for the long term leasing of land bycommunity trusts

The Housing portfolio in Scotland is one of thelarger components of the Scottish budget. The vastmajority of grants are provided to local authoritiesand Registered Social Landlords and this puts ruralhousing providers at a distinct disadvantage. Asmall proportion of grant funding was available foralternative housing providers in the form of anInnovation Fund (£10m out of a total £260mhousing budget), but this was discontinued in2012.

Challenge funding is now minimal, with the focuson local authority-led planning. It remains to beseen how local authorities respond to thesechanges, but making more funding available toprivate and community housing providers – for bothnew and existing stock – would undoubtedly havean exponentially more positive effect in ruralScotland.

Recommendation 17: Housing grant fundingshould be opened up to private and communitylandowners

Recommendation 18: A proportion of housinggrant funding should be directed at renovations

1.3 Planning

The Scottish planning system was identifiedthroughout the evidence sessions as the biggestbarrier to any progress. Issues with planning arewell-recognised, well-known and there are no easyfixes. Some have simply suggested scrapping theplanning system and starting anew, although thatremains in the realm of fantasy.

The most common complaints on the side ofapplicants are that decisions take too long and the

bureaucratic burden is extensive, while on anotherlevel communities feel a tension between centraldecision-making and local involvement where localinput is minimal or late and local priorities nottaken into account.

Funding of the planning system is a major issueand increasing staff funding for planningdepartments would be a straightforward step thatshould result in better performance. There is asignificant difference between the approach toplanning fees in England and Scotland, with theformer setting fees as high as £250,000 asopposed to a maximum £15,950 (for mostdevelopments) in the latter.

There is evidence, however, showing that morefunding does not always translate into fasterplanning, with Audit Scotland reporting a rise in theper-application processing cost overall withoutimproved performance. Businesses are in generalnot opposed to paying higher fees on the conditionof improved performance3. A consultation is on-going in Scotland and it will be interesting to see ifsuch a link can be found. Our approach is rooted inlocalism and local authorities deciding on their ownpriorities. If a proportional link can be establishedbetween business growth and local authorityincome, a localised planning system should be thenorm.

Recommendation 19: Planning fee setting shouldbe fully devolved to local authorities, with a centralcap set at £250,000

The concerns raised on a local level were regularlyaimed at central decisions overriding local decisionsor taking away the decision-making poweraltogether. It is right and proper that centralauthorities retain a level of control over someapplications considered to be of significantimportance, just as it is appropriate for applicantsto have the option to appeal to central governmentif they feel the decision taken locally was takenwithout good reason.

We do, however, believe that these central powersshould be used lightly and public local inquiriesshould be the norm in call-ins as well as reporterappeals. Legislation stipulates that ScottishMinisters must allow a public inquiry into anycalled-in application if this is requested by theapplicant or the relevant planning authority and it isalso one of the options a planning reporter haswhen dealing with an appeal. This discretion forplanning reporters is important and should beexercised on a case by case basis. We see localinquiries as crucial for call-ins, but do recognise the

3. Audit Scotland - Modernising the Planning System - September 2011

16

cost and time involved can be considerable4.

Recommendation 20: Public Local Inquiriesshould be the norm during call-ins as well asappeals

It has also been noted that some of the biggestsources of delay in planning occur at local authoritylevel, especially in planning committees. This wasmeant to be addressed by the introduction ofschemes of delegation, which devolve planningdecisions to planning officers as opposed to electedrepresentatives. Appeals on these decisions go tocouncillors and not to Scottish Ministers. Evidencewe received suggests that these decisions are takenpromptly and with a great deal of expertise. Webelieve there is scope to extend local schemes ofdelegation, but this should be at local authorities’discretion.

Recommendation 21: Encourage the extension ofschemes of delegation

We also took evidence on the value of Strategic andLocal Development Plans. It was generallyrecognised that the overall approach is a positiveone, but we feel that there is room for improvementin two areas.

Firstly, there seems to a disconnection betweennational Scottish Planning Policy and Strategic andLocal Development Plans. The reasons for this canbe multiple, but steps should be taken to ensure abetter alignment of planning policies. Whilst SDPsand LDPs have to be approved by Scottish Ministers,it is imperative that early dialogue occurs betweenthe two levels of government.

Secondly, local communities and individuals oftenfind out that plans have been passed, without anyknowledge of a consultation period in the monthsbefore. Early local consultations, advertised throughinformation campaigns, have to be conducted.

Recommendation 22: Better align Strategic andLocal Development Plans with Scottish PlanningPolicy

Recommendation 23: Improve local consultationduring the development of Strategic and LocalDevelopment Plans

Rural developments have traditionally beenhindered by restrictive planning policies preventingplanning permission being granted on agriculturalland or in the so-called “Green Belt”. In rural areas,as mentioned above, this is especially problematic

in relation to affordable housing. An optionavailable to planning authorities is the designationof “Rural Housing Exception” sites.

The policy has been in use in England since 1989and while Scottish local authorities do have thepower, they very rarely use it. Where housing needis identified, local authorities can designate areas asexception sites in order to grant planningpermission.

With planning granted, the value of land goes up,but planning conditions can stipulate a low ceilingfor the sale of land. Another option would be toallow developments of mixed use, with a proportionof houses earmarked for direct sale (covering landcost) and the remainder for affordable housing –which is the aim of this policy.

Recommendation 24: Spread information andencourage the use of rural housing exception sites

The most straightforward way to alleviate concernsover local decision-making being overturned wouldbe a complete devolution of planning to localcommunities under specified conditions. We arefully aware that this proposal is a radical one andwould require detailed work on how to align such apolicy with major developments, national ScottishPlanning Policy as well as European Union legislation.The principle, however, is clear – local communitiesare best placed to make decisions about whatdevelopments they want to see in their local areas.

We envisage community trusts, with an appropriatelegal structure and the continuous backing of thecommunity, to opt out of parts of the planningsystem, creating their own “neighbourhood plans”.These would extend to small developments whichdo not require significant investment ininfrastructure.

Neighbourhood Planning Authorities would operatewithin the national planning framework, but wouldnot be required to subscribe to Strategic and LocalDevelopment Plans produced by local authorities.Appropriate safeguards would need to beintroduced to ensure the community trust has thecontinuous support of the community and closecooperation between neighbouring planningauthorities would be essential. The Land Reform Actalready sets out a basic definition for communitybodies and popular support (requiring >50%support for a community buyout to occur). Webelieve these definitions could be used, providedlegal structures, continuing support and exitprovisions are clarified.

4. AWPR (Aberdeen Bypass) inquiry, for example, lasted 14 weeks

17

There is of course a need for an overall consistencyof approach and respect for the countryside andhistoric architecture. Planning design is an essentialpart of Scotland’s character and national designguidelines would have to be observed.

Recommendation 25: Legislate to allowcommunity bodies to opt-out of the planningsystem and create Neighbourhood PlanningAuthorities

The rapid increase in renewable energydevelopments has sent shockwaves through theplanning system. It is beyond the remit of thisreport to comment on the developmentsthemselves, but we feel we need to recognise theopportunities arising from Community BenefitFunds. These funds do have their critics who saythat they amount to nothing more than outrightbribery and we do agree that planning applicationsshould be decided by merit on a case by case basis.However, it would be inappropriate to ban anycommunity negotiations or, on the other hand,make CBFs compulsory.

Community Benefit Funds have taken very differentshapes and forms across Scotland and the lack ofcentral guidance and direction is blatant. Highlandsand Islands Council, for example, introduced apolicy which splits every CBF into funding that isretained on a local (55%), locality (30%) and pan-Highlands (15%) level. This is an approach that mayor may not be suitable, but we believe that this isanother area in which the Scottish Government canand should provide assistance to local authoritiesand, by extension, local communities.

CBFs, due to their prevalence in rural areas, alsooffer yet another opportunity to improve energyefficiency across existing housing stock. Some localauthorities do implement such policies, withAberdeenshire taking 25% off every CBF to invest inenergy efficiency measures. We believe that whilethis should be at local authorities’ discretion, suchapproaches should be encouraged as much aspossible.

We also recognise that community benefit does nothave to stem from a separate fund, but can alsocome from private landowners reinvesting profits intheir communities, as, contrary to impressions, isoften the case.

Recommendation 26: Share best practice andprovide guidance on the best use of CommunityBenefit Funds

Recommendation 27: Encourage top-slicing ofCommunity Benefit Funds to reinvest in local energyefficiency measures

1.4 Broadband

Nowhere is the urban-rural divide more obviousthan in broadband provision across Scotland.Access to the internet has evolved to beingabsolutely essential for individuals andcommunities, the public and independent sectors,for business, education, health care and leisure.Statistics on rural Scotland make for grim reading(comparatively with other UK nations) and anybodyliving, working and even visiting rural Scotland iswell aware of the issue.

Investing in rural broadband helps maintain andincrease rural jobs through supporting ruralbusinesses. It allows internet-based businessdiversification and allows people to work from home.Welfare system changes are now linked to onlineaccess and developments in telecare and onlineeducation offer unprecedented opportunities for thefuture. Rural Scotland must not be left behind.

While there are many supportive voices, strategiesand funding streams out there, delivery on theground is patchy at best. Capital funding ismisaligned and fragmented, with different funds atlocal authority, Scottish Government and UKGovernment level.

Recommendation 28: Rural broadband deliveryhas to become an absolute priority and focus ofpolicy-making at all levels of government

The rural-urban divide is obvious in fundingprovision. There is a very clear bias in broadbanddelivery – money has been set aside to providesuperfast broadband across UK’s cities whilst someremote rural areas don’t even have proper access toslow broadband5.

We understand that business hubs in cities accountfor a much higher GDP percentage and employthousands more than rural businesses. It is,however, unclear why areas where markets canoperate effectively should receive preferential publicinvestment. Rural businesses are the backbone ofrural life and if public money is targeted, it shouldgo to rural areas first and foremost.

Recommendation 29: Public investment inbroadband should be targeted to rural areas, withsuperfast-cities funding diverted there

5. Legal challenges mean the superfast-cities scheme is being modified

18

The importance of broadband has been recognisedworldwide, but some countries have takenunprecedented steps to ensure this is reflected inlegislation. Finland, for example, enshrined a legalright to broadband in legislation, effectivelypromoting broadband access to a human rightlevel. While this might seem theatrical, it does serveas a powerful symbol and has seen a final push todelivering broadband to the most remote ruralareas of Finland.

In the UK, policy-makers can make use ofUniversal Service Commitments and UniversalService Obligations, with the latter includinglegal sanctions if broken. Broadband access isbeing rolled out under a USC, although a USOrequirement was lobbied for by several ruralgroups. A USO has existed for British Telecom(and Kingston) for the provision of phone andnarrowband access to everyone since 1984. Thecosts incurred are effectively covered by cross-subsidies from other users.

The technological landscape has changed incrediblyin the last 30 years and there have been severalreviews of the USO requirement since then. All havebroadly concluded that a USO for broadband wasnot desirable at the moment due to thecomplexities of market interference. However, theHouse of Lords Communications Committee, forexample, argued that future developments shouldbe anticipated and considered now. Their reportanticipated that broadcasts will be increasinglydone via the internet and not through the spectrumand concludes that if Pubic Service Broadcastingmoves to the internet, the case for a USO becomesmuch stronger.

We have come to the conclusion that marketinterference at this stage is desirable andnecessary and that a USO should be introduced.This would incur significant costs on broadbandproviders, but there are several options of deliverythat would influence the detailed impact of thepolicy. It is not for this report to give the answer,but we point to Finland again, which has chosenindividual universal service operators to deliver itsobligation across 27 different regions. We believethis is a model worth considering across the UK aswell.

Recommendation 30: A Universal ServiceObligation should be introduced for broadbanddelivery

Rural communities, however, have several otherinnovative options at their disposal, which havesometimes delivered incredible results forbroadband availability. Satellite access, for example,

has become significantly cheaper than in the past -some providers offer £130 start-up costs and then£25-£80 per month for individuals. Enterprisingcommunities often only need guidance andpotentially some start-up funding, but there areways of getting broadband to most rural areaswirelessly.

Allanton in Scotland, to the South of Shotts, is anexcellent example. With only 10 residences, thecommunity worked with High-Speed UniversalBroadband for Scotland (an initiative linking severalScottish universities) to install an antenna at a visiblechurch in Newmains, around 5km away. They nowenjoy speeds up to 100mb/s at a cost of £10 permonth and an initial installation of under £200.

The Welsh Government offers a Broadband SupportScheme, where it covers the start-up and installationcosts for individuals, businesses or third sectororganisations which do not have access tobroadband from mainstream providers. This canapply to individual satellite connections, communitysatellite (spread by wireless networks) or otherinnovative methods (e.g. FTTC). Since its launch in2010 it delivered broadband to 4,700 premises and31 communities across Wales.

The Community Broadband Scotland fund, launchedin August 2012, allocated £5 million over the nextthree years, but this needs to be significantlyhigher. It is also only available to communities andshould be extended to individuals, businesses andthird sector organisations. We do note that CBS setup a one-stop-shop (helpline and website) andwelcome this.

Recommendation 31: Double the CommunityBroadband Scotland fund and focus on advice andguidance

Recommendation 32: Open up rural broadbandfunding beyond communities to individuals,businesses as well as third sector organisations

1.5 Transport

Rural communities depend on good transport links.Taking steps that make individual, community orpublic transport more affordable are some of themost straightforward ways of helping rural Scotlandflourish. A cut in fuel duty would have adisproportionately positive effect in rural areas dueto their dependency on road travel, although we dorecognise the budgetary pressures of today and donot include it as one of our recommendations.

There is, however, another measure that we believewould be helpful to rural communities – the use of

19

rebated fuel. Under the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act1979, certain categories of vehicle are not definedas road vehicles and can therefore use rebated fuel,otherwise known as “Red Diesel”. For comparison,in May 2013 Red Diesel averaged 68 pence perlitre, while the Diesel Pump Price averaged 138 ppl.The rules on Red Diesel have been relaxed recentlyto allow tractors to use it when gritting roads andwe believe there is scope to extend the categoriesof allowed vehicles to non-commercial community-based transport providers in remote rural areas.

Recommendation 33: Allow non-commercialcommunity-based transport providers to userebated fuel (Red Diesel)

Community- and charity-run buses are essential torural Scotland. For older people especially, these areoften the only direct link to health care as well asfriends, family or recreation. Research6 suggest anageing population, more pronounced in rural areas,can also lead to higher levels of isolation, withsubsequent detrimental health effects.

We have heard of commercial operatorswithdrawing services from the most remote areasas they are simply not financially sustainable. Somelocal communities step in themselves, with charitiesoperating elsewhere, providing services that can beflexible (offering door-to-door, dial-a-bus or drop-offservices). The funding for these schemes is patchyand inconsistent at best, with a comprehensivenational strategy absent. A start-up transport capitalfund should also be introduced as the initial costscan be the most discouraging element whenconsidering community transport projects.

An impressive national campaign also exists (StillWaiting) that is lobbying for the extension of theNational Concessionary Travel Scheme beyondcommercial operators to community transport. Thecampaign is urging the Scottish Government toreimburse the full value of a ticket as opposed tothe 67% for commercial operators. We fully supporttheir aims and have included them in ourrecommendations.

Recommendation 34: Develop a national strategyon community transport and introduce aCommunity Transport Capital Fund

Recommendation 35: Extend the NationalConcessionary Travel Scheme to communitytransport providers

Alternative green transport is another area whereprogress is necessary and requires active

intervention by central authorities. We are consciousof the environmental effects of road transport inrural areas, but it should not come as a surprisethat alternative technologies are not taking off –without the infrastructure in place little progresscan be expected. There have been encouragingsteps taken in some urban areas, but rural roll-outis still lagging behind.

On balance, we believe that investment in electrictransport can yield the best results – it is a well-developed technology and, compared to othersunrise technologies like hydrogen, is relativelycheap. In February 2013 the Scottish Governmentannounced a £2.6m package for electric transport,which included free installation of home chargingpoints throughout Scotland as well as publiccharging outlets within at least every 50 miles ontrunk roads – a welcome announcement. The on-the-ground delivery of this will be crucial, as wehave seen similar initiatives fizzle out at localauthority level.

We also believe there is merit in a closer integrationbetween the rail network and electric transport andwe argue that a new franchise agreement shouldconsider an obligation to install electric chargingpoints at train stations where practicable.

Recommendation 36: Ensure the delivery of theannounced electric transport package and considerroll out beyond trunk roads

Recommendation 37: The new ScotRail franchiseagreement should consider an obligation to installelectric charging points at train stations wherepracticable

6. Age Scotland - Driving Change: The case for investing in community transport, August 2012

20

We need a holistic look at land use including forestry, tourism,housing or energy in policy choices. It is in the interests of all ofus that more land is used and, crucially, is used well.

22

AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND LAND TENURE

2. AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND LANDTENURE

Scotland’s farmers produce output to the value of£2.3 billion every year and agricultural productioncovers 75% of our land mass. Around 65,000people are directly employed in agriculture, makingit the third largest employer in the country7. It is ofno surprise then that farming policy hastraditionally been the focus of rural policy-making.The statistics, however, can deceptively hideunderlying problems in the sector that have beenhighlighted to us during evidence sessions –subsidy dependency, a declining tenancy sector,barriers for new entrants or increased cost ofproductivity per hectare.

Scotland has a long history of farming tenancies,but we need to recognise that legislation is stuck inparadigms that don’t apply anymore. In today’smarkets we fortunately do not have to worry aboutfood security, which was the primary reason forfarming-specific policy-making.

We argue that farming is a business just like anyother and there is little reason, providing existingfarmers’ social benefits can be protected, why itshould enjoy special protection over other land-based businesses. We need a holistic look at landuse including forestry, tourism, housing or energyin policy choices. It is in the interests of all of usthat more land is used and, crucially, is used well.

The farming workforce is ageing (in 2008 51% ofworking occupiers were over 55 and 25% over 65)and while the reasons for this are complex andvaried, it is clear that the 2003 changes had alimited effect on the tenancy sector. This can becontrasted with English reforms that had a clearpositive effect. We believe that there are somesteps that can be taken to incentivise youngentrants – freedom of contract, planning systemchanges, retiring farmer compensation and SFPchanges.

We also address the controversial topic of landownership, which has attracted renewed attentionfollowing the setting up of the Land Reform ReviewGroup. We do not subscribe to populist statementson millionaire landlords preventing communitiesfrom fulfilling their potential. We proudly highlightthe positive contributions most landlords make totheir local communities and emphasise thatcommunity ownership should not be an end initself, but one of the several vehicles availabletowards an end - the end being a better use of ourland resource.

2.1 Agricultural Holdings

We embarked on this process aiming to start from ablank sheet of paper, largely unburdened by pastpolicy decisions regardless of their political source.Agricultural holdings policy can be a politically difficulttopic, but we stress that our recommendations arenon-political and guided by what we believe is best forthe future of rural Scotland.

We fundamentally recognise that agriculturalholdings policy is presently in a state of deadlock.New land is not made available to new tenantswhich can result in the underutilisation of the asset.Tenants with security of tenure often pass on theirtenancies to descendants not enthusiastic aboutfarming in order to protect their tenancy value. Ifthey do not have anyone to pass their tenancies tothey have no legal right to a set amount ofcompensation if they decide to retire. Landownerscan serve notices to quit under certain conditions,but often choose to simply wait and let nature takeits course. Our recommendations throughout thissection are aimed at breaking this deadlock to thebenefit of existing and prospective tenants as wellas landlords.

As mentioned above, we approach farming in abusiness policy framework, as opposed to, forexample, crofting, which has to be seen in a socialpolicy framework (more on that in 2.3). This putsfarming on equal terms with other land-basedbusinesses and it becomes difficult to see whyfarming should deserve significantly morelegislative security. Our policy recommendations arerooted in this fundamental principle.

There is, of course, a social element to existingsecure tenant farmers who have lived with familieson their farm often for decades, but we do believethis can be addressed by changes in planning policydiscussed in section 2.1.1.

Recommendation 38: Recognise that farmingtenants and landowners should be on equal termsentering a commercial relationship

The next sections look at three separate areas inagricultural tenancy legislation – the traditional1991 Act tenancies with security of tenure, the new2003 Act tenancies and possible future tenancylegislation.

2.1.1 1991 Act tenancies

In 2012 there were 5,9148 agricultural tenanciesunder measures introduced by the Agricultural

7. http://www.nfus.org.uk/farming-facts8. Statistical Publication: Agriculture Series - Results from the June 2012 Scottish Agricultural Census 23

Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949 and the AgriculturalHoldings (Scotland) Act 1991. In short, thesetenancies provide hereditary security of tenure,succession rights as well as a pre-emptive right tobuy for tenants should the landowners decide tosell land. The legislation governing the landlord-tenant relationships is complex and has becomeeven more convoluted over the last few decades.

We believe ’91 Act tenancies are historicalconstructs and we suggest measures that wouldallow us to move away from them towards ahealthy business-driven system. We want toemphasise that our thinking is not driven by adesire to decimate the tenancy sector and benefitlandowners, quite the contrary. We aim to break thedeadlock described above, strengtheningcompensation provisions for tenant farmers andmake more land available to those interested in theprofession.

One of the policy proposals that resurfacesregularly is the introduction of an Absolute Right toBuy to agricultural tenants, forcibly breaking theland ownership pattern in Scotland. We have to beabsolutely clear – the very mention of such a policydisincentivises landowners from entering into newtenancy agreements due to the risks of losing theirassets. There is little hope of progress for thetenancy sector until ARTB is decisively rejectedacross the political spectrum and confidence isallowed to grow.

Recommendation 39: Decisively reject AbsoluteRight to Buy

Amongst all the focus on young entrants, retiringtenant farmers are often forgotten. We have beengiven examples of cases where farmers wouldconsider giving up their secure tenancies, but won’tdo it since they cannot claim any financial benefitfrom land they invested a lifetime of effort in. Onone hand they would be giving up their homes andon the other they have no secure compensation asthis solely depends on negotiations with thelandowner9 who may be unwilling or sometimesunable to pay anything.

We believe that legislation needs to be strengthenedto account for appropriate compensation paid tothe tenants if they choose to give up their securetenancies at any given time. We propose thelegislative formula to calculate compensation to bestipulated as “half the vacant possession premium”,which is a calculation already used in land valuationas well as section 55 of the Agricultural Holdings(Scotland) Act 2003. Our evidence suggests thatthis is an appropriate level of compensation for

tenants as well as an amount that landownerswould be willing to pay. The formula ensures thatthe value of compensation would vary from case tocase according to specific circumstances including,for example, the age of the retiring farmer.

Recommendation 40: Legislate for statutorycompensation to be payable to ’91 Act tenants whochoose to give up their secure tenancies

We also recognise the social dimension of securetenancies, where farmers raised families in homesthat they would, under normal circumstances, beasked to give up. We do believe that the aboverecommendation for compensation must go handin hand with changes to the planning system, whichwould either allow for a house being built for aretiring farmer on adjacent agricultural land (a“retiring farmer exception”) or allow for a housebeing built for a new entrant farmer entering a newlease under measures outlined in 2.1.3.

Recommendation 41: Introduce “retiring farmerexceptions” and/or “new entrant farmer exceptions”into planning legislation

2.1.2 2003 Act tenancies

The Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003attempted to introduce measures to rejuvenate thetenancy sector, but it is widely recognised that it didnot have the desired effect. Short Limited DurationTenancies (SLDTs) and Limited Duration Tenancies(LDTs) that were introduced by the Act are inflexibleand unpopular. Even though their take up hassteadily increased since 2005, in 2012 there wereonly 540 SLDTs and another 321 LDTs acrossScotland, accounting for under 13% of all Scottishtenancy agreements. An even better measure oflong-term trends is the total area of land owned andtenanted and we include graphs in section 2.1.3.Our approach is to move towards tenancyagreements based on the freedom of contractbetween two consenting business partners –landowners and tenants.

Recommendation 42: Gradually phase out 2003SLDTs and LDTs following the introduction offreedom of contract-based Agricultural Tenancies

2.1.3.Future tenancies

The tenancy sector would best be served byallowing landowners and tenants to come to normalbusiness agreements, entirely dependent on mutualagreement, possibly with some safeguards fortenant compensation for improvements. This is theapproach taken in England and the difference is

9. Under provisions included in Section 55 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 200324

immediately obvious10. We provide two graphs forcomparison of long term trends:

Land rented and owned in Scotland

Land rented and owned in England

The evidence is quite clear – the introduction ofFarm Business Tenancies through the AgriculturalTenancies Act 1995 had a clear positive effect ontake-up, halting, and to an extent even reversing,the decline of the tenancy sector.

We cannot think of any other non-fiscal measurethat would be better in opening up more land fornew entrants. Agriculture, and land-based businessin general, of course needs to be profitable first andforemost, but giving landlords and prospectivetenants the freedom to decide themselves whattenancy conditions suit them would be a positivestep in the right direction. Agricultural Tenancieswould also be better suited to a diversification ofland business activity, making new tenancies amore attractive prospect for enterprisingindividuals.

Recommendation 43: Introduce AgriculturalTenancies based on the freedom of contract

2.2. Common Agricultural Policy

CAP goes beyond the Rural Commission’s remit. Wefelt that with major CAP reform underway

throughout the course of the Commission, anyrecommendations would have been prone to beingovertaken by events. We do, however, wish tooutline a couple of basic principles that we believeshould be considered in the mid-to-long term,although we recognise that the powers are reservedto the UK Government and/or the European Union.

CAP funding is without a doubt slowly coming to anend. This has not translated into official policystatements on any level of government, but ourtask was rooted in ignoring the political dimension.We simply have to honestly recognise that there willbe major challenges for farmers in the long run astheir overall dependency on Single Farm Paymentsis significant. We believe there is scope inrefocusing policy from supporting specificindustries (in this case agriculture) to overarchinggoals like tackling climate change. For example, alocalised and targeted carbon trading scheme couldtake the lead in supporting rural areas. It is,however, crucial that steps are taken now inanticipation of long term developments.

Recommendation 44: Recognise and address thelong term challenges arising from CAP subsidydependency

In the short-term, an area we believe deservesattention is the nonsense of historic-basedpayments. The policy means that the SFP fundingpackage in Scotland is based on farming outputfrom over a decade ago. Not only is thisnonsensical in itself, it also discourages newentrants to enter the agricultural sector.

The discrepancy between devolved nations in thisrespect is significant, with payments averaging€130 per hectare for Scotland, €339 per hectare forNorthern Ireland, €245 per hectare for Wales and€265 per hectare for England11. The historicpayments model was opted for by the ScottishGovernment, although it seems 2015 is likely to seea move towards area-based payments. It isimperative that this transition occurs, but that italso occurs sensitively and not disruptively.

During the transitional period, it has beensuggested that a pooling of the regional SFP potsshould be considered, addressing the significantdisparity and spreading payments on an equitablebasis across the UK. We support this proposal fully.

Recommendation 45: Single Farm Payments to beconverged across the UK on a temporarytransitional basis

10. SPICe Briefing - SB 12-02, Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, January 201211. http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/business/devolved-nations-must-unite-to-form-fair-cap-payments-system/52308.article

25

2.3 Crofting

Crofting policy is perhaps the most prominentexample of an archaic policy that is out of date.Crofting policies were introduced to supportagriculture on small holdings, but the reality is thatthere is very little agriculture going on anymore.Today crofting is often a hobby and virtually never aliving.

We have to emphasise that it is right and properthat marginal rural communities are supported, butthe policy framework as it stands is simply not fitfor purpose. Legislation is incredibly complex andthe array of changes introduced over the lastdecade has, in effect, merely tinkered around theedges of the problem. We believe we need to bringcrofting into the 21st century.

The first step has to be a divorce from agriculturalpolicy and a re-examination of provisions within asocial policy framework. The level of legislativedetail and the limits of our crofting expertise do notallow us to make further specific recommendations,but we feel strongly about the need for radicalreform.

Recommendation 46: Crofting tenure and grantspolicy should be re-examined within a social policyframework

2.4 Forestry

Research conducted by the Forestry CommissionScotland in 200812 estimated the total GVA ofScottish forestry at £303.6 million and showedforestry directly employs 10,253 people (FTE).Another 17,900 FTE jobs are supported fromtourism and recreational spending directlyattributable to woodlands. The range of forestrybenefits is wide and can be commercial,environmental as well as recreational, educationaland even medical.

And yet, the evidence we received throughout oursessions seems to suggest that policy-makers donot recognise the value of forestry and, inparticular, commercial forestry. There is evidence ofa plethora of targets and strategies, but very littledirect political will to support the industry. Thesupport that does exist will often be focused onnon-commercial benefits. We want to argue thatwhile this support is appropriate, the value ofcommercial forestry needs to be recognised as well.

Recommendation 47: Recognise the value ofcommercial forestry in policy-making

For historical reasons, chief amongst others,public policy-making has been consistently tippedin favour of agriculture. There is, however, nodoubt that we can increase forest cover inScotland without affecting food security inagricultural production. This does not have to beexclusively woodland for timber and a range ofbenefits can be achieved. Presently we havearound two billion growing trees in Scotlandacross 1.38 million hectares of land13. Thisaccounts for just under 18% of our total landarea, which is above the UK average of 13%. Whileit might seem significant, it pales in comparisonwith the world average of 30% as well as the EUaverage of 37%.

For commercial forestry in particular, we are in nodoubt that investing in timber needs to increase.Timber imports will only become more expensiveover time and Scottish demand is unlikely to fall.Scotland has the potential to be timber self-sufficient and policy-makers should take steps toachieve this. To put it very bluntly – if we can growtrees, we should grow trees.

This approach requires private investor confidencefirst and foremost and we do suggest severalmeasures that can ensure this throughout ourrecommendations. As a first step, however, thetension between agriculture and forestry needs tobe relieved. This goes back to our fundamentalpoint of seeing land as land, without sections of itdefinitively earmarked for particular use due toarbitrary reasons. A long-term consistent approachis required and dialogue between competinginterests should be the first step.

Recommendation 48: Forestry must not be seenin isolation to agriculture and vice versa

We also address state ownership of forestry and therole of the Forestry Commission Scotland andForest Enterprise. While we accept that some levelof state ownership is essential and beneficial innon-commercial forestry, we see no reason whycommercial timber production should be owned bythe state. Other commercial activity (primarilytourist/recreational) forests could also be reformed,with state ownership remaining, but public benefitmodels trialled.

2.4.1 Forestry Commission and Forest Enterprise

Forestry benefits are wide-ranging, but canfundamentally be divided into “commercial” and“non-commercial”, even though there is overlap insome areas. By extension, Scotland’s forest estate

12. FCS - The economic and social contribution of forestry for people in Scotland, September 200813. Woodland Trust - The State of the UK’s Forests, Woods and Trees, 201126

can be split into productive and non-productive(“forest parks”) parts.

Under “productive forests” we primarily meantimber business, but there are also examples oftourist/recreational use that are run for profit (e.g.adventure sport). It is worth noting that the ForestryCommission (or Scottish Government) also ownsland that is not covered by woodlands and is usedfor other, primarily renewable energy, projects.There are also examples of mixed use forests. Thenon-commercial “forest parks” are seen here as afree recreational resource, with a wide range ofenvironmental, health and conservation benefits.

Scottish Ministers own around 34% of the forestresource in Scotland, approximately 481,000hectares14. A distinction along the above lines isimportant when evaluating the role of the state inforestry. From the evidence we received weconclude that there is no reason whatsoever, apartfrom ideology, for the existence of state-ownedtimber enterprise and propose that commercialforest assets of this kind be sold off. The mostprominent example would be parts of GallowayForest, which would be an ideal candidate forselling off. In times of significant budgetarypressures we believe the proceeds of these salescould be used to fund future forest grants.

Non-timber commercial and mixed use forest landcan work well under public ownership and we haveseen plenty of evidence for this. We believe thatthere might be merit in exploring public benefitmodels or other community/private managementmodels which ensure any profits are reinvestedback in the asset. It is also worth noting thatprivately owned forests also operate as recreationalbusinesses, with Llandegla Forest in Wales anexcellent example.

We want to emphasise that forest parks, however,do fill an essential place in Scotland and should beretained in public ownership.

Recommendation 49: Introduce fundamentalreform of the state-owned and state-managedforestry estate in Scotland

Forestry Commission Scotland is a body thatfunctions as a part of the Forestry Commissionwhich operates on a UK-wide basis. Its statustherefore touches on devolved as well as reservedmatters. It does give Scottish forestry access toshared resources in the form of international policy,research or plant health and we want to highlightthe positive nature of this arrangement. UK forestryresearch is world-class and it is essential that it is

retained regardless of any other constitutionalchanges.

We do, however, believe that if there was a wayto overcome constitutional competence issues,we should aim to create a Land Use Commission,where forestry, agricultural and other land-basedinterests could work together. The recent LandUse Strategy is a step in the right direction and aLand Use Commission could ensure itsimplementation on the ground. We wouldenvisage the Rural Payments and InspectionsDirectorate (RPID) to sit below the strategy-focused LUC and remain responsible for themanagement of forestry grants.

Recommendation 50: Ensure the retention of UK-wide shared forestry resources

Recommendation 51: Take steps to transform theForestry Commission Scotland into a Land UseCommission tasked with implementing the LandUse Strategy

2.4.2 Grant system

Our evidence suggests that the forestry grantsystem works reasonably well. There was universalrecognition, however, that present levels of grantfunding are unsustainable and that reform will benecessary in the mid-to-long-term. Currently, thelevels of start-up support are quite high and it wassuggested to us that maintenance support,appropriately policed, should be increased.

Recommendation 52: Increase forestrymaintenance grant support

Forestry has traditionally received favourable taxconditions – wholly reserved to Westminster. Thesystem was convoluted and has changedconsiderably over the last few decades. Presently,forestry as a commercial business has a strikinglydifferent tax treatment to other businesses,whereby there is no tax relief on the ingoing costs,but equally no tax on the sale of the product. Asmentioned above, financial pressures make publicgrant funding unsustainable in the long term undercurrent arrangements.

We believe that there is a case for remodellingpublic financing for forestry through theintroduction of a low tax on timber sale profits. Theproceeds from this can be used to fund targetedstart-up and maintenance grants or the introductionof upfront tax relief on the initial costs ofestablishing the forestry business – i.e. planting.

14. Ibid27

Furthermore, a higher proportion of grants shouldbe linked to commercial activity, which used to bethe case in the past. Coupled with a sales tax,increased activity will translate into higher taxreceipts, making forestry support significantly moresustainable.

Recommendation 53: Lobby Westminster tointroduce a low tax on timber sale profits and taxrelief on forestry start-up costs

Recommendation 54: Tie more grants tocommercial activity

2.5 Community Ownership & Management

Community ownership of assets, including land,has been presented by some as panacea for amultitude of problems facing rural Scotland. Wehave seen evidence of community bodies that doown land and work very well indeed, bringinginnovative solutions to land use, reflecting theirlocal priorities.

We conclude, however, that there is no evidence tosuggest that community ownership is necessarilyconducive to better land management. It can serveas a catalyst for increased or varied activity on land,but there is no reason why this could not beachieved through the use of long leases or landmanagement agreements.

The Scottish Land Fund provides financial supportfor communities in their buyout bids, but there is alevel of irony in significant amounts of taxpayermoney flowing into landowners’ pockets in theinterests of local communities. If we do accept thisprinciple, however, there is scope for opening theSLF up to provide continuous funding support forlong leases as well. Since the availability of landremains the biggest issue, supporting a long leaseapproach has significant potential to improve therelease of land.

Recommendation 55: Open the Scottish LandFund to provide continuous funding for long leasesalongside community land purchases

Community ownership should not be seen as anend in itself, as it often is, but only as one of theoptions for improving local land use. As withagricultural tenancies, we emphasise that a willingseller must be the norm when pursuing communitybuyouts.

There are, however, some further issues we believeneed addressing in relation to the Community Rightto Buy provisions in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act2003:

* The definitions of community bodies are looseand we believe that legislation should includesome direction on trust structures.

* There is scope for loosening the postcodedesignation requirements and allowingcommunity self-identification.

* The conditions on community support should bestrengthened to avoid the possibility of severalcommunity trusts claiming to represent the samearea (as theoretical as this seems at the moment).

* The balloting requirements (>50%) are bothappropriate and essential and they sit well withour neighbourhood planning proposal fromsection 1.3. Provisions should, however, beincluded for continuous reaffirming of communitysupport.

* The 2003 Act, furthermore, has to account for an“exit strategy” and the process to be followedwhen a community body dissolves (again, this ison a theoretical level only).

Recommendation 56: Reform Community Rightto Buy provisions in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act2003 in relation to community bodies

Recommendation 57: Recognise that a willingseller must be the norm for community purchasesand reject an Absolute Community Right to Buy

As far as we are aware, community-owned land canalso not be borrowed against (used as security)since the conditions for repossession are legallyunclear. Under current legislation, community landis bought with assistance from public funds (via theLand Fund) but is then effectively lost for thepurpose of secure loans.

There is a radical solution that we feel has merit,although we recognise the political difficulties withits implementation. Where land is due to bepurchased by the community, it could instead bebrought under state ownership, with the communityin turn granted exclusive use of the land withsignificant security provided for. This would meanthat the community would own land in all butname, but the risks of it being lost, should acommunity dissolve, are covered.

Recommendation 58: Consider state ownershipand exclusive community use of land bought withpublic funds

28

Scotland’s natural resources are and must remain her pride. Ourlandscapes attract millions of tourists every year. Our lochs andrivers offer unrivalled and globally renowned anglingopportunities. Our countryside is home to a vibrant and balancedflora and fauna that must be protected.

30

SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF SCOTLAND’SWILDLIFE RESOURCE

3. SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OFSCOTLAND’S WILDLIFE RESOURCE

Scotland’s natural resources are and must remainher pride. Our landscapes attract millions of touristsevery year. Our lochs and rivers offer unrivalled andglobally renowned angling opportunities. Ourcountryside is home to a vibrant and balanced floraand fauna that must be protected.

We do, however, offer recommendations in thissection that are rooted not only inenvironmentalism and conservation, but socio-economic considerations as well. The evidence wereceived leads us to believe that there are areas,especially in species management, where the scaleshave tipped too far towards conservation. In otherareas the case for more protection and direct policyinterference is overwhelming. Ourrecommendations are guided by the need for abalanced, common-sense approach across all levelsof government.

We address four specific areas in this section –Freshwater Catchments, Aquaculture, CoastalWaters and Wildlife. We also considered theoverarching issue of public body performance. Weconclude that SEPA and SNH operate reasonablywell and their performance was largely praisedthroughout the evidence sessions we held.

A SEPA and SNH merger was examined in 200715 inthe same review that recommended the merger ofthe Deer Commission and SNH and we recognisethat there are risks associated with a straight-outmerger. There is scope, however, for examining acloser strategic working relationship between thetwo organisations and we believe a joint board,meeting on a regular basis, could incentivise suchthinking.

Recommendation 59: Pursue a closer strategicintegration of SEPA and SNH through the creation ofa joint board

3.1 Freshwater Catchments

Freshwater angling, predominately for salmon,contributes over £200 million to the Scottisheconomy. Whilst the majority of the fisheries are inprivate hands, local angling associations are foundthroughout Scotland, offering affordable fishing onmany of our prime rivers.

The migratory nature of most of Scotland’sfreshwater fish (salmon & sea trout) necessitateslocal policy being aligned with national policy.

Management of migratory fish is vested in 41District Salmon Fishery Boards, who are advised by25 Fisheries Trusts. Overall, the governance systemworks well. Their statutory functions differ, with therole of charitable Trusts being more overarching -conducting research or providing education,training and advice. It is recognised that if we wereto start from a blank piece of paper, we wouldprobably devise a much more integrated systemand not a multi-tier structure which is a result ofhistorical evolution. We do not advocate a blanketmerger of DSFBs and FTs, but we do believe that acloser integration should be pursued resulting inamalgamation in certain areas.

Recommendation 60: Recognise that there isscope for an amalgamation of DSFBs and FTs insome areas

DSFBs, for the most part, perform very well. Theyare self-funded from riparian levies, to the tune of£3.5m in 201016, and their Boards are made up ofpeople who give up their time voluntarily.Replicating this management model in the publicsector would be expensive, counter-productive anddetrimental.

We do accept, however, that a closer integrationbetween the public sector and DSFBs is desirableand that a statutory extension to certain dutiesshould be considered.

Central to such a system should be a robust Codeof Good Practice. The Association of Salmon FisheryBoards already produces this and it is right andproper that they take a lead on any futuremodifications. We believe that DSFBs shouldvoluntarily subscribe to the Code, but if they refuseor do not adhere to it, SNH (as an extension ofScottish Ministers) or a local Board should step inand take over catchment area management. Powersto lay regulations for when salmon stocks are underthreat already exist, but these should be extended.

We suggest all Boards should include statutoryrepresentation from local councillors as well as aSEPA and/or SNH representative.

We propose that Boards should have their dutiestowards fisheries extended to include thesurrounding environment that supports fisheries aswell as a responsibility for trout stocks. This is likelyto incur higher costs and a funding model shouldbe developed that would couple public funding withexisting private funding to meet the newrequirements. A straightforward option would be arod licensing system, but we do recognise thesignificant level of opposition and reluctance

15. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Environment/Countryside/Management/resources16. ASFB submission to Aquaculture Bill consultation, March 2012 31

amongst Scottish anglers and have therefore notincluded it as one of our recommendations.

Recommendation 61: Introduce provisionsrequiring DSFBs to adopt and adhere to an industry-produced Code of Good Practice or face losing theirpowers to Scottish Ministers

Recommendation 62: Legislate for statutoryrepresentation of councillors and conservationagencies (SEPA/SNH) on DSFBs

Recommendation 63: Extend DSFB requirementsto include a duty to protect or improve theenvironment that surrounds freshwater fisheries

Recommendation 64: Legislate to include a DSFBresponsibility for trout stocks and develop afunding model that can combine private and publicfunds

The marine survival of salmon has fallen by 80% inthe last 50 years and now only 5 in 100 fish returnto their native rivers after their marine migrations17.In order to mitigate this decline in marine survival,conservation initiatives (such as catch and releaseby anglers) have been promoted and developed.

The migratory nature of salmon and sea troutcomplicates conservation efforts, but the existenceof Mixed Stock Fisheries is universally recognised asthe most problematic issue in this area. MixedStock Fisheries make the individual management ofriver stocks impossible as they are completely non-discriminatory and random in fishing. Thesefisheries declare a catch of around 14,000 Scottishsalmon every year and the number of active nettingstations is increasing.

International evidence is overwhelming - it has beenofficial Government policy in England and Walessince 1991 to phase out Mixed Stock Fisheries andScotland is alone of all EU countries in actuallypresiding over an increase in mixed stock fisheriesin the last two years.

Our recommendations are unequivocal – MixedStock Fisheries have to be steadily decommissionedand phased out. We do recognise the need forsome sort of compensation, however, and thisshould come from rod fisheries – the main financialbeneficiaries of such a move - arranged on a case-by-case basis.

Recommendation 65: Steadily decommission allMixed Stock Fisheries, with appropriatecompensation from rod fisheries

3.2 Aquaculture

There is no question about the value of aquacultureto the Scottish economy. Scotland is currently thelargest producer of farmed Atlantic salmon in theEU and third largest globally – producing 158,018tonnes in 2011 with an estimated value of £584million at farm gate prices18. Salmon is alsoScotland’s largest food export. We also note thatfish farms often provide employment opportunitiesin some of the most remote rural areas of thecountry, with 1,300 direct jobs supported acrossthe West of Scotland.

Notwithstanding the above, fish farms do presentenvironmental challenges and their potential effectson conservation have been highlighted throughoutour work. The local environmental impact of fishfarms, especially on the benthic environment, isuncontested – be it from the feed, waste or medicaltreatment that comes with the industry. SEPA,responsible for licensing, should ensure that theseeffects are temporary and reversible and shouldclosely monitor that standards are being met and arobust Code of Conduct is adhered to. Anysignificant breach of such a Code should incurpenalties. Any expansion should be subject toproper planning, with the precautionary principleapplied first and foremost.

Recommendation 66: Any expansion of finfishand shellfish aquaculture should be done under theprecautionary principle

The other problematic area relates to the interactionof aquaculture with wild salmon and sea trout. Thehigh concentration of salmon in fish farms, creates abreeding ground for sea lice, which are naturallyoccurring, but which in concentrated numbers arelethal to young salmon and sea trout. Poor sea licecontrol by individual fish farms will result in suchnumbers around the cages as to severely damagewild fish stocks. As with benthic pollution above, theindustry does have a Code of Good Conduct on sealice, but it is not mandatory. We were particularlydisappointed to see individual farm-level sea licemonitoring requirements dropped from theAquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill 2013.

Escapes of farmed salmon are another source ofconcern. Their interaction with wild salmon andtheir genetic mixing have been highlighted aspotentially problematic. This sits alongside themore straightforward issue of escaped salmoncompeting for the same resources as wild salmonand therefore threatening their natural habitat. Webelieve that aquaculture should steadily movetowards closed containment.

17. http://www.salmon-troutscotland.org/18. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/Fish-Shellfish/FactsandFigures32

Recommendation 67: Require individual farm-level sea lice statistics to be published regularly

Recommendation 68: Require the salmon farmingindustry’s Code of Good Practice on sea licenumbers and benthic deposits to be mandatory,and failure to abide to be actionable

Recommendation 69: Steadily move towardsclosed containment in finfish aquaculture

While we are uneasy about any further expansion offinfish or shellfish aquaculture, we do recogniseScotland’s immense potential for seaweedaquaculture. Seaweed farming, while commonaround the world, is very rare in Scotland, withcurrent production limited to small-scale wildharvesting. Evidence suggests that theenvironmental impact of seaweed farming iscomparatively minimal, although pilots and impactmodelling must be conducted before any policyinitiatives. Commercial benefits are vast – seaweedis not only used in feeds and bio-fuel, it isincreasingly used in cosmetics or medicine.However, its benefits go well beyond commercialactivity as recent research suggests that seaweedfarms can actually tackle pollution19.

Recommendation 70: Support the commercialexpansion of seaweed aquaculture

3.3 Coastal Waters

As mentioned in the Chairman’s introduction, thereare good reasons for treating inshore fisheries anddeep-sea fishing separately for the purposes ofpolicy-making. The former is almost exclusivelyconcentrated in the North East of Scotland andpolicy is handled on a European level (CFP). On theother hand, inshore fishing has in the past been anessential part of the life of some of the mostremote rural coastal communities and itsmanagement is devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

It has been suggested to us that creelers, which stillmake up the majority of the Scottish commercialfishing fleet, employ local residents, while over halfof inshore trawlers employ non-residents.Furthermore, the collapse of sea angling has had asignificant knock-on effect on the local hospitalityindustry. This wider social benefit to ruralcommunities is something that needs to berecognised and should, in our opinion, takeprecedence over the nebulous national economicbenefits of inshore trawling.

The economic value of sustainably managedinshore fisheries should not be dismissed. Like creel

fishing, recreational sea angling and sustainablecommercial fin-fishing can bring substantialbenefits to rural areas. Their advantages overexisting shellfish trawling or dredging lie in theeconomic benefits being retained locally and intheir synergy with other inshore activities such asmarine tourism and diving.

Recommendation 71: The socio-economic benefitsof a diversified inshore fishing policy should takeprecedence over the short-term economic benefits ofshellfish trawling and dredging

Whilst we need policies that make economic sense,these need to be in harmony with environmentalsustainability. One would struggle to find a betterexample of the lifting of long-term managementmeasures causing unbridled environmental damagethan Scottish inshore fisheries. We are in absolutelyno doubt that inshore ecosystems were outrightdestroyed by the change in policy in 1984 (lifting amobile fishing gear ban). Local, diverse andsustainable fishing was replaced by large-scale“seabed farming” with the majority of landingstoday being shellfish, pushing out traditionalspecies such as herring or cod. This is a factrecognised across the political spectrum as well asthe industry.

Where opinions differ, however, is the extent towhich this damage is reversible. The only way toascertain this is by conducting thorough researchunder long-term trials. There are positive signs ofimprovement from other countries in Europe, forexample Norway or the Faroe Islands, but robustScottish evidence does not exist.

During our evidence sessions the SustainableInshore Fisheries Trust (SIFT) outlined a trial to beconducted in the Firth of Clyde, which includedspatial management measures including the ban ofmobile fishing gear. The Rural Commission seesmerit in introducing such a trial for the purposes ofresearch that can inform future policy-making.

Recommendation 72: Initiate a long-term inshorefishery spatial management pilot in the Firth ofClyde to provide a research base for future policy

We cautiously welcome the introduction of InshoreFisheries Groups (IFGs) in Scotland and believethese are a step in the right direction. A long-termmarine planning approach is crucial to thesustainability of inshore fishing. Concerns havebeen raised, however, that IFG representation isbiased towards commercial fishing interests andexcludes local authority representation, defeatingtheir cooperative planning purpose.

19. Scottish Association for Marine Science33

In contrast, the 2011-launched Inshore FisheriesConservation Authorities (IFCAs) in England, eventhough funded differently, must include localauthority representation as well as “personsacquainted with the needs and opinions of the localfishing community”20 We recognise that both theEnglish and Scottish systems are young and willrequire a period of adjustment, but on balance thelegislative provisions in England seem to bettermatch the economic, social and conservationbenefits of plan-led systems.

We have also seen evidence of Coastal and MarineParks operating around the world and the benefitsthey bring to rural tourism as well as conservation.Coastal and Marine parks have been mooted inScotland for a while, with SNH producing anadvisory report in 2005, but have never been takenforward. We believe there is merit in examining theissue again.

Recommendation 73: Evaluate IFG performanceagainst their economic, social and conservationbenefits and consider strengthening legislativerepresentation requirements

Recommendation 74: Consider the introduction ofCoastal and Marine National Parks across Scotland

3.4 Wildlife

Wildlife management in Scotland has evolved overcenturies. The overall impression we got from theevidence taken was that the system works very wellindeed. The Wildlife and Natural Environment(Scotland) Act 2011, in particular, has been hailedas one of the best pieces of legislation to come outof the Scottish Parliament.

There is, however, scope for a closer integration ofdifferent interests as well as a looser, scientific-based and pragmatic approach to conservation.One witness expressed the need to look at floraand fauna conservation on a much wider level, withthe merit of species control and protectionmeasures assessed on a European-wide basis asopposed to a Scottish-only perspective. We find thisprinciple attractive. Much is already done on aEuropean level, but this is an area where furtherintegration can and should be pursued.

Recommendation 75: Pursue a closer integrationin species control and protection on a pan-Europeanlevel

We have also been provided with a few examples ofwhen conservation seems to be pursued purely forthe sake of conservation, without much regard of

the surrounding issues. Witnesses highlighted, forexample, species reintroduction at the cleardetriment of another, although it is unclear whetherthese were unintentional or anticipated side effects.Elsewhere, wildlife protection measures haveprevented remedial works being done to historicproperties – in one particular case the appearanceof bats delayed essential roof repairs.

It is clear to us that in some cases conservationmeasures have gone too far. We, however, alsorecognise that the primary reason for this is theimplementation of policy on the ground and thatthere is little that can be done legislatively. It istherefore important that policy-makers at all levelsof government adopt a balanced and pragmaticapproach to interpreting what is generally well-drafted legislation.

Recommendation 76: Species protection shouldbe balanced and pragmatic and guided by theholistic environmental and social needs of thecountryside

Deer management has for a long time been seenseparate from wildlife conservation and theapproach to it was rooted in the cooperationbetween private landlords with commercial gamestalking interests. Recently, however, closerintegration was pursued and this is something to bewelcomed. The merger of the Deer CommissionScotland with SNH, for example, was a good step.We believe that further integration should follow.

We propose a transformation of Deer ManagementGroups into Habitat Management Groups, withduties and responsibilities for the conservation ofthe wider flora and fauna of the areas they cover.The new HMGs should have cross-sectorrepresentation from all interested parties and notjust landowners. We envisage a close workingrelationship with DSFBs in areas where they overlap.

The Code of Good Practice, currently produced bySNH, would have to be amended to reflect thischange in scope. Under current provisions, forexample, the Code of Good Practice includes looserequirements to produce deer management plans.HMGs should be, by extension, required to producea habitat management plan. We believe that while itis right that the Code of Good Practice works on avoluntary basis, if a habitat management plan is notproduced, it could serve as the basis for SNHintervention.

Recommendation 77: Transform DeerManagement Groups into Habitat ManagementGroups with wider duties and responsibilities

20. Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 s.151 (2)(a)34

Recommendation 78: Introduce requirements toproduce habitat management plans on a voluntarybasis, but with refusal included as one of thegrounds for SNH intervention

Throughout our work on wildlife management, oneoverarching theme was stressed time and timeagain – the need to focus on up-to-date scientificevidence. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981(albeit amended) is still the main piece of legislationthat sets out protected species, although some arecovered by European legislation too.

We believe that there are instances of species wehave been protecting for the last 30-40 years thatdo not require the same level of protectionanymore. A looser approach to protected specieslicensing should be pursued by SNH, which hasbeen responsible for licensing since theintroduction of the Wildlife and Natural Environment(Scotland) Act 2011 (with minor exceptions forMarine Scotland).

Recommendation 79: Advocate a looser approachto protected species licensing from SNH

35

Scotland has a unique and strong identity, but it needscontinuing support from policy-makers. Contrary to perceptions,the tourist industry does not operate with excessive profits.

36

RURAL TOURISM

4. RURAL TOURISM

The tourism industry is one Scotland’s mostimportant business sectors. The total estimatedemployment in tourism has been estimated at270,000 (10%) with a total value of £11.1 billion(10.4%)21. However, we also know that in theHighlands employment in the tourist sectoraccounts for as much as 20%, with some areasentirely dependent on it.

Looking at tourism by sector, Business Tourismcontributes an estimated £878m22 to the Scottisheconomy, with golf adding £120m GVA. The golfindustry as a whole, however, generates a massive£1.17bn annually and employs 20,000 people23.

Rural Scotland mostly benefits from Nature BasedTourism, which contributes £1.4bn and supports39,000 FTE jobs24. The complex SNH model usedavoids double-counting and applies and modifiesthe findings of previous research as well. SNHbreaks down Nature Based Tourism as follows:

* Wildlife - £127m* Field Sports - £136m* Walking - £533m* Adventure Activities - £178m* Landscapes and Scenery - £420m

Scotland has a unique and strong identity, but itneeds continuing support from policy-makers.Contrary to perceptions, the tourist industry doesnot operate with excessive profits. In this sectionwe will argue that there should be a predispositiontowards supporting tourism as a key ruraleconomic driver, especially as it often employspeople in areas where there is precious little otheremployment.

We also have to recognise that Scotland’s weatherimpacts on tourism more than any other policyinitiative. While we can’t change the weather, wecan focus our energy on tourist activities that canprolong the tourist season and therefore have aknock-on effect on the economy - country sports,wildlife & extreme sports, skiing and events.

Recommendation 80: Recognise tourism as anessential ingredient of rural economies

We address a considerable number of issues in thischapter, which is a reflection of the importance oftourism to the rural economy and ruralcommunities.

The list of stakeholders in relation to tourism isvery long and includes different levels of the public,private and voluntary sectors as well as sectoraland geographical groups representing a wide arrayof specific market segments. Dialogue andcooperation are absolutely pivotal in maintainingand developing rural tourism.

Sectoral grouped businesses can only gain fromworking together and need to be recognised inrural tourism policy. Local geographical groups arealso important and have to be reflected in anynational strategies. Local areas often know besthow to incentivise each other to work together, butguidance can be useful. Public bodies mustcooperate and be aware of demand patterns andlocal issues, making standardised evidence-gathering crucial.

We note that there is currently a plethora ofdifferent funding sources and grant support comingfrom enterprise agencies (SE, HIE), European funds,the Scottish Rural Development Programme,VisitScotland growth fund and others. They all havedifferent purposes and all have different conditions,which we recognise and therefore conclude that amerged fund would not be desirable. However,often a single member of staff has to navigatethrough very different rules and conditions toaccess funding and the biggest source of helpwould be the provision of advice and guidanceunder a one-stop-shop approach.

Funding also has to be coupled with long-termthinking and continuous evaluation of projects.Presently, applicants have to constantly re-inventand re-package their services just to accessfunding. This emphasis on ‘the new venture’ shouldnot be a priority and furthering success should alsobe an element of funding.

4.1 Cross-sector Cooperation

As mentioned above, public sector cooperating withindependent sectors and also local geographicalorganisations working with sectoral organisationshas to be the norm for rural tourism. Present policymaking is often reactionary and unimaginative,although we have heard of excellent examples oflocal cooperation that resulted in and innovativeuse of land (e.g. 7stanes across Scottish Bordersand Dumfries & Galloway). Sometimes policy islinked to further political objectives with littlerelevance to the actual industry it is supposed tosupport. A part of the problem is a lack of trainingfor public bodies’ staff who are often not consistent

21. Deloitte - The Economic Contribution of the Visitor Economy - June 201022. http://www.visitscotland.org/research_and_statistics/tourism_sectors/business_tourism.aspx23. Value of Golf to Scotland’s Economy - June 201324. Valuing Nature Based Tourism in Scotland - October 2010 37

in the way they help the industry, but closercooperation is crucial.

The Scottish Tourism Alliance seems to have been agood step towards furthering cooperation betweenstakeholders, but we recognise that it may be toosoon to tell. VisitScotland, at arm’s length from thegovernment, should work with STA so that as far aspossible they agree. The STA, however, will alwaysbe able to lobby for what the tourist industry wants,whereas VisitScotland won’t always be able tooblige. These are differences that have to berecognised and there are limits to the level ofintegration that is possible. For other governmentagencies considering their involvement with tourismthe principle should be to approach both VS andSTA.

Recommendation 81: Encourage cooperationbetween public bodies and independent providersfor both sectoral and geographical tourism groups

Recommendation 82: Promote a close workingrelationship between the Scottish Tourism Allianceand VisitScotland

The way the tourism industry interacts with privateinterests is also of importance. We feel that the rightsand responsibilities of private owners have to berecognised as well and voluntary agreements betweenproviders (landowners), facilitators (tourist operators)and users (tourists) have to be encouraged.

Access rights created by the 2003 Land Reform Acthave in most cases clarified responsible access andavailable evidence suggests it did not harmlandowners’ interests in most cases. A couple oftourists hill-walking or canoeing would not be ofissue to any landowner as these are largely non-invasive. Big expeditions or white water rafting, onthe other hand, can have a significant effect on roadmaintenance or angling. Responsible access mustbe the key principle in these cases and we believethat this should be cumulative to commercial touristactivity organisers, and not individuals.

Recommendation 83: The tourism industryshould respect the geographical area it operates inand cooperate with other interests – private orpublic

Recommendation 84: Encourage voluntaryagreements between providers (landowners),facilitators (tourist operators) and users (tourists)

Recommendation 85: Responsible access shouldbe cumulative to commercial tourist activityorganisers and not individuals

Good examples of different private sectororganisations coming together for a common purposeare Business Improvement Districts. These arerelatively new and rare in Scotland and mostly operatein urban areas. However, Oban, as a rural town, setup a whole town BID as a first in all of Britain.

The principle of businesses voluntarily comingtogether and agreeing to pay an extra business ratelevy to be reinvested in improving the local area – inturn benefiting them all – is one we fully support.Local authorities in particular have a role to play inproviding guidance on the necessary legal stepstowards BIDs.

Recommendation 86: Encourage the creation ofBIDs through the provision of information andadvice

Another area that was identified for closerintegration was transport. We recognise that therehave been significant improvements over the lastdecade in this respect (e.g. ferry and bus timescoordination), but communication between privateand public transport providers is still infrequent.

We also feel that a potential area for significantimprovement lies in supporting active travelthroughout the public transport network. Providingspaces for bicycles on trains, for example, wouldhave a significant effect on this domestic tourismsector.

Recommendation 87: Promote a closer dialoguebetween public and private transport providers

4.2 Funding and Funding Access Advice

The Commission recognises that there areinevitably a variety of different funding streams fortourism each serving a different purpose. However,we believe that in general they should aim tosupport the following points:

* Growth of existing or new projects in areas andsectors where there is a demand for growth fromthe consumer and a capacity to deliver it

* Events that bring tourism and economic growthto Scotland or an area where the event takesplace

* Long-term development including training* The industry working together and informationgathering/market research

* Marketing

We touch on these points throughout this chapter,but these are the key areas that we feel shouldapply to the public funding structure as a whole.

38

We strongly believe, however, that the best way tosupport sectoral and geographical organisations, aswell as individual tourist businesses, would be via aone-stop-shop approach in advice provision. Policy-makers need to find a way to help businesses andorganisations access grants, and aim to reducetime-wasting and unnecessary duplication. Thiscould go hand in hand with the private sectorcollectively sharing administrative, IT, accounting orlegal resources – although this would not be up tolegislators to facilitate.

We envisage that the STA, with help fromVisitScotland, could serve as a central “House ofTourism”, with two main functions. Firstly, providingsupport to the wide range of sectoral andgeographical organisations with tourism interests.Secondly, providing a one-stop-shop approach foraccessing different funding streams.

We would see the initial consultation being free,with small fees for subsequent follow-ups. Thisensures that everybody has access to some sort ofstarting point for grant funding. We feel we need toclarify that we do not want to see another public orsemi-public body being created – this would be anindustry-led and industry-delivered projectsupported by VisitScotland.

Recommendation 88: Facilitate a one-stop-shopapproach to grant funding advice

4.3 Marketing and Other Support

Scotland itself is a very effective marketing brandfor international tourism. On a more local domesticlevel, however, understanding your market is thekey to developing marketing strategies as well asattractive tourism packages. We have been told thatthorough and localised research does not exist inScotland, although VisitScotland does provide somenational data. We believe it is essential thatstandardised publicly funded evidence-gatheringacross Scotland is conducted to collect local datawhich are to be made publicly available. We wouldimagine this to include visitor numbers, areasvisited, activities and satisfaction rates. Hand inhand with the above is a sharing of best practice,guidance and skills within the industry.

Recommendation 89: Introduce a standardisedevidence-gathering model across Scotland withcollected data publicly available

While VisitScotland’s marketing role largely receivedpraise, there was a feeling of a certaindisconnection between the agency and VisitBritain.We felt that their roles in terms of internationalmarketing are blurred and should be clarified.

Provided the present constitutional debate is setaside, we do not imagine this being an arduoustask and a better coordination should beachievable.

Recommendation 90: Clarify the roles andimprove the coordination of VisitScotland andVisitBritain in respect of international marketing

The introduction to this chapter touched uponweather as being one of the most important factorsaffecting Scottish tourism. While some might arguethat our weather has become synonymous withScotland and is part of the tourist experience, wedo have to recognise that it sets more challengesthan opportunities to our tourist industry.

We can’t prolong our summers, if there indeed areany at all, and we can’t expect most tourists toenjoy hill-walking in wind and rain. What policy-makers can do, however, is build a policyframework that supports tourist industries whichare less dependent on good weather and cantherefore prolong the tourist season. Increased off-season tourist activity translates into an alternativesource of income for fragile rural economies.

We envisage country sports, wildlife & extremesports, skiing and events to be higher on the list ofpriorities when determining funding or other policyon local and national level. The last one of these inparticular, events, deserves special mention as theyencourage tourism, but in themselves often requirefinancial support. Events across Scotland should bepromoted locally, nationally and internationally.

Recommendation 91: Give preference to all-weather tourism and tourism that prolongs theseasons when determining funding and policy onlocal and national levels

4.4 Quality Assurance

The quality of accommodation has been highlightedas a serious issue in evidence. Tourism surveys, forexample, highlight accommodation as one of thekey areas for improvement (second only after,unsurprisingly, weather). We recognise that this ischiefly because hospitality is a low paid industry,influenced by the reserved tax regime.

Scotland operates the Quality Assurance scheme,which awards star ratings to hospitalityestablishments as well as visitor attractions basedon quality inspections. It has two main purposes:quality control and offering advice for improvement.We believe the focus of the scheme should be onthe latter – advice.

39

The star system is inevitably bland, although itdoes serve as a useful guide for accommodation,acting as a price indicator for visitors. Furthermore,many today make use of online review sites likeTrip Advisor to a much larger extent to assess thequality of accommodation or attractions, makingthe star system less essential. For attractions, wefeel the assessors should be better versed inunderstanding the attractions they visit, but theadvice element of the scheme here is even moreimportant than hospitality and stars can bepositively misleading, as they refer to facilitiesrather than the attraction itself.

Recommendation 92: Refocus the QualityAssurance scheme on providing advice, limiting thestar rating to accommodation

4.5 Local Authorities and Regulation

The tourism industry in Scotland, contrary to theimpression one could have from the economiccontribution figures outlined in the chapterintroduction, is fragile and this must be recognisedacross all levels of government.

Throughout our evidence sessions we haveconsistently encountered complaints about differentregulatory regimes, most of which originate onlocal authority level. Temporary alcohol licensing,fire, health and safety regulations were amongst theones mentioned most often. A pragmatic lighttouch approach to these with the aim of proactivelyencouraging tourism development must be taken –there should be a predetermination to find solutionsto identified problems. The speed with whichdecisions are taken has also been highlighted.

The amount of regulation, however, is only one sideof the problem. The consistency (or lack thereof)across local authorities was seen as a serious issuefor certain businesses. We would not wish to seecentral legislation dictate a particular approach tolocal authorities, but a closer working relationshipand a sharing of best practice must be encouraged.

Recommendation 93: Adopt a light touchapproach to regulation and a proactive desire tofind solutions to encourage tourism development

Recommendation 94: Encourage a consistentapplication of regulation across local authoritiesthrough close cooperation and best practice

4.6 Fiscal Issues

In today’s financial climate it would be insincere forthe Rural Commission to call for more substantialspending or significant tax cuts in particular areas.

Throughout this report, we attempted to be realisticabout the future levels of public spending and thefeasibility of fiscal policy measures.

We, however, feel we need to highlight a handful ofissues that particularly affect Scottish rural tourismand should be kept in mind in the mid-to-long-term.We are also aware that all of these are fully reservedissues, but would like to see Scottish policy-makerslobby their UK counterparts on them.

We identified three major issues that affect Scottishrural tourism:

A lack of support for the maintenance of historicproperties, which we argue would best be served bytax allowances as opposed to complex grants

Air Passenger Duty (APD) affects Scotland, since it isat the periphery, significantly more and thearguments for scrapping it are, in our opinion,overwhelming

The costs and complexities of the visa system,especially for booming markets like China and Indiaput the UK at a distinct disadvantage over ourEuropean counterparts and we advocate asignificant loosening of the tourist visa regime

Recommendation 95: Introduce VAT incentivesfor the maintenance and repair of historicproperties

Recommendation 96: Advocate the scrapping ofAir Passenger Duty

Recommendation 97: Loosen the tourist visaregime and lessen their cost

40

GLOSSARY

APD - Air Passenger DutyARTB - Absolute Right to BuyBID - Business Improvement DistrictBRIS - Business Rates Incentivisation SchemeCAP - Common Agricultural PolicyCBF - Community Benefit FundCBS - Community Broadband ScotlandCFP - Common Fisheries PolicyDMG - Deer Management Group DSFB - District Salmon Fishery BoardFCS - Forestry Commission ScotlandFT - Fisheries TrustFTE - Full-time EquivalentFTTC - Fibre-to-the-CabinetGDP - Gross Domestic ProductGVA - Gross Value AddedHIE - Highlands and Islands EnterpriseHMG - Habitat Management GroupIFCA - Inshore Fisheries Conservation AuthorityIFG - Inshore Fisheries GroupLDT - Limited Duration TenancyLDP - Local Development PlanLUC - Land Use CommissionQA - Quality AssuranceRPID - Rural Payments and Inspections DirectorateSDP - Strategic Development PlanSE - Scottish EnterpriseSEPA - Scottish Environmental Protection AgencySFP - Single Farm PaymentSIFT - Sustainable Inshore Fisheries TrustSLDT - Short Limited Duration TenancySLF - Scottish Land FundSNH - Scottish Natural HeritageSRDP - Scottish Rural Development ProgrammeSTA - Scottish Tourism AllianceUSC - Universal Service CommitmentUSO - Universal Service ObligationVAT - Value Added TaxVS - VisitScotlandWANE- Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011

41

Published by Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party, 67 Northumberland Street, Edinburgh EH3 6JG. Printed by Hill & Hay Ltd., 58 Rogart Street, Glasgow G40 2AA.