Chamber and committees

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.

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.

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.

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

I will make a couple of brief comments to close this group. First, on who can report a breach, there is a danger that, if that provision is drawn too widely, it will end up with individuals lodging vexatious complaints. Having a list is, therefore, important.

I appreciate the point that the cabinet secretary made to Rhoda Grant about the list that Ariane Burgess proposed, and perhaps there is a way to expand that further, particularly for bodies that are genuinely representative of a community. Rhoda Grant mentioned grazing committees. There might be some possible tweaks to be made at stage 3, but I would certainly be concerned about individuals who have a particular view on pylons, for example, just putting in endless vexatious complaints. There is a balance to be struck there.

Listening to contributions on enforcement, it feels as though most people, apart from Bob Doris, are saying that they expect fines to be pretty regular. I do not really think that that is the case. This is ultimately about a deterrent. Amendment 97A is about saying, “This is a strong deterrent. If you do not comply with this, you will get a fine at some point, eventually.”

Yes, but let me continue a little bit further. There is a need for flexibility and up-front collaborative working. It is good that Tim Eagle has reflected on that with some of his amendments. Ultimately, we are talking about a backstop and saying that the law is the law.

We have seen that, with the register of controlling interests, which is a minor requirement on landowners that was brought in several years ago, there are issues with compliance—we will return to that issue in later amendments. It is important to have the right deterrent in place, as well as ensuring that the right collaborative work with the commissioner and individual landowners can be done. However, let us be clear: this is not about crofters with 5 hectares of inby land; it is about sizeable holdings and businesses with—we have just agreed—1,000-plus hectares. Those are major businesses and if, with all the support that is available, they cannot meet the requirements in the bill, there should be a hefty deterrent and a requirement to fulfil the obligation.

I wanted to address the issue of cross-compliance again, but I am happy to accept the cabinet secretary’s reasoning around amendment 412, which was that, looking at it from the subsidy point of view, requiring cross-compliance with the subsidy regulations in relation to the land management plans and all the other obligations in the bill is probably the right way to do it. The fact that that reasoning is on the record gives me confidence that it is another thing that farmers will have to do before they get subsidies and support.

I will leave it there. Did somebody say that they wanted to come in?

It was you! It has been a long day. In you come, Bob.

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

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?