Chamber and committees

I agree. The tone of members’ contributions to the discussion seemed to suggest that they expect fines to be a fairly regular occurrence, but I hope that they are not. I hope that there are never any fines because that relationship is good. The existing tenant farming commissioner, Bob McIntosh, has set the tone. It has to be about—

I have a fair bit to say in the next section, and I think that others will also want to contribute. I am also aware that we are starting a stage 3 in the chamber at the back of two. Let us leave it there.

I am sorry. I did not realise that this was an intervention; I thought that it was my opportunity to contribute.

How confusing.

Amendment 5 would establish a 500 hectare threshold. We debated that issue in group 3 last week. I will not be moving that amendment on behalf of Ariane Burgess.

It depends on the nature of the business. Ultimately, it is about having a deterrent. You have moved an amendment that suggests that the figure should be £500—well, £500 is very little next to the cost of producing a land management plan. We have to consider the context. We took evidence in the committee that suggested that some land management plans may cost several thousand pounds to produce—perhaps upwards of £10,000 or £15,000—although that depends on the guidance, and we do not have the guidance yet, so we are not sure what an LMP will look like for a large estate or a smaller estate.

There would be a way to avoid having an LMP if we accepted your amendment to pitch the fine at £500. I think that £40,000 is within the limit of something that the commissioner could do, which is why it is pitched at that limit. A fine of that nature would provide a deterrent. I hope that no one would ever get a fine, because, instead, they would do the easy, obvious thing, which is to comply with the legislation by having the conversation with the community and laying out their plans for the future. It should be a positive thing.

I will leave it there.

That would be an interesting example of whistleblowing within the structure of HIE. Those bodies have a role to play in working with other stakeholders and being able to report a potential breach if they see one. Ultimately, it is up to the land and communities commissioner to make that judgment. All that my amendments would do is say that those bodies can make a complaint where they perceive a breach. It is then up to the commissioner to gather the evidence and decide.

Going back to amendments 412 and 413, I think that cross-compliance on subsidy and statutory consents is essential—the Scottish Land Commission has identified that in its work. A fixed penalty of £40,000, as proposed by Bob Doris, is a useful starting point, but there would need to be meaningful points of escalation to ensure compliance. Landowners frequently access public money for agriculture, forestry or other forms of land management. Granting the land and communities commissioner a means of impacting landowners’ access to that funding will be far more impactful than a fixed financial penalty in more egregious cases. I thank Community Land Scotland for its support in developing the ideas for those amendments.

I support Bob Doris’s amendment 97, but my amendment 97A, which amends it, looks to strengthen the language that is used in one key regard. My understanding is that amendment 97 would allow the land and communities commissioner to follow up in cases of an on-going breach, and proposed section 44IA(3)(d) of the 2016 act would give the commissioner an option to impose a further fine if the breach is not remedied in a specified time. Amendment 97A proposes that the commissioner must issue subsequent fines if breaches are on-going. If we are at the point where fines are being issued and we are at the end of a process, I think that there should be a duty on the commissioner to issue those fines.

Turning to other amendments in the group, I support the cabinet secretary’s amendments that strengthen the commissioner’s role to initiate investigations into potential breaches. Unfortunately, I do not support Tim Eagle’s amendments that would reduce the maximum fine that the commissioner can impose, as that is moving in the other direction from the amendments that Ariane Burgess and I have proposed. We need strong enforcement in the legislation, so the Scottish Greens will be supporting Bob Doris’s amendments, which deliver that. Our amendments will strengthen what he has proposed and go a little further.

On Rhoda Grant’s amendments, I am supportive of amendment 347, which would add a provision for the land and communities commissioner to recommend that ministers issue a compulsory sales order in the event of an on-going breach that continues across a five-year period.

All the amendments in the group look to put in place a proper framework of penalties, as there is concern about compliance going forward.

I move amendment 53.

I find myself agreeing with much of what Tim Eagle said in relation to positive things happening in rural Scotland. The committee had a number of visits. For example, we went to Atholl Estates, which is well bedded in with the community, already has active plans on nature restoration, and is doing work on housing, the management of villages and so on. Where that works, it does work. I do not see it as a massive imposition to take that information and compile it in a way in which communities can engage with it.

Ultimately, this is about a conversation. Nothing in land management plans will compel landowners to make a certain decision. All they are being asked to do is to engage with communities. That could be a very positive conversation. It could be about the community thinking about how it can support an estate or a larger farm in its business enterprises and about where there might be business opportunities. Members of the community could say, “Have you thought about small-scale horticulture? Have you thought about a business doing mountain bike guiding or tuition?” There could be opportunities—it is a way of creating a conversation.

Okay. I will hurry up with my intervention and perhaps forego my opportunity to come in again later. I merely say that Mr Eagle’s points about the positivity are well made. However, convener, do you agree that the issue comes down to guidance? For an estate that already has well-developed forestry plans and land management plans, it will perhaps be more about translating those into a community conversation that is meaningful and supportive for the estate and the community. That is at the heart of the issue.

We do not know what that looks like yet, because we do not have the guidance yet. The guidance needs to show a way forward that is proportionate and genuinely useful for everybody. I do not recognise the figure of £15,000—the process could cost that if it was incredibly onerous, but it does not have to. It could involve the essence of what is in the bill, which is a positive conversation, positive community planning, iterative thinking between communities and landowners and partnership. That is what I take out of it. Do you agree, convener?

I could pretend to be Ariane Burgess talking about Mark Ruskell’s amendments, if you want.

I have a quick reflection. Do you agree that, where a larger estate has to produce a land management plan, surrounding smaller landholdings—farmers, typically—would benefit? They would not have to produce a land management plan, but the transparency of a nearby estate would be there, so they could see more clearly the future for the area and how they might fit into that.

Do you not think that the requirement for transparency and to have a discussion with bigger landholders would benefit smaller landholders such as yourself or the convener? Clearly, your land would not be captured by the 1,000 hectare threshold currently set by the bill.