That is interesting; price seems to have been dropped as a priority.

Perfect. That is understood.

Sarah Boyack, you can have a very brief question at the end, unless you think that it has already been answered.

Welcome back to the meeting. The third item on our agenda is the consideration of two draft statutory instruments.

The instruments confer responsibilities on Zero Waste Scotland in relation to the public sector equality duty in the Equality Act 2010. Following Zero Waste Scotland’s reclassification as a non-departmental public body in October 2024, the instruments aim to align its legal responsibilities with that status. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has raised no points in relation to either instrument.?

I welcome Gillian Martin, Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy, who is joined by supporting Scottish Government officials Andrew Mackie, who is head of environment and forestry sponsorship hub; Carolyn Boyd, who is a lawyer; and Russell Bain, the deputy director for international futures and brand Scotland policy.

The instruments are laid under the affirmative procedure, which means that they cannot come into force unless the Parliament approves them. ??Following the evidence session, the committee will be invited to consider two motions recommending that the instruments be approved. I remind everyone that Scottish Government officials can speak under this item but not in the debates that follow.

I invite the cabinet secretary to make a short opening statement.

The committee will report on the outcome of the instrument in due course. I invite the committee to delegate authority to me as convener to approve the draft of the report for publication. Are you happy to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

It looks as though we are going down a well-trodden path, whereby not one of my amendments is worth considering. [Interruption.]

Well, I never like being told by somebody that they are perfect, which is what we are getting here, and that my amendments are not worthy of consideration. I find that slightly disrespectful.

My amendments in this group, of which there are 15, would ensure that the land and communities commissioner was mobilised to investigate breaches, where appropriate.

Yes, I will.

Thank you. I am not sure that that was a question; I think that it was a statement. I am also not sure that, when I saw the cabinet secretary, she disclosed all her amendments to me, but I am not going to play a tit-for-tat game. I am going to talk about how to resolve the situation.

I want the land and communities commissioner to be mobilised to investigate breaches where there is evidence, to tidy up the timescales that are currently missing from the bill and to reduce the potential fine for landowners—for breaching the community engagement obligations—to £20,000 from £40,000, which seems to be an arbitrary figure that was agreed at stage 2. The LCC’s investigation of a breach is covered by amendments 28, 29, 30 and 32, which would provide that the commissioner must investigate a report of an alleged breach “only” if they were satisfied of certain conditions and the report had been

“submitted by a person permitted to do so”.

In addition, under these amendments, the commissioner must not investigate if they are not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence within the report, or if it is based on the same facts in a previous report, regardless of who submitted it.

Amendment 33 is a technical amendment. It makes sense that any decision to investigate an alleged breach should be based on the facts of the breach and not on who reports it. It would be an unacceptable waste of resources and an unnecessary burden on the landowner for the commissioner to be required to investigate the same breach—or proposed breach—again and again if it was reported by different people, even if it was without foundation.

Amendment 147 would mean that the commissioner could provide the report in a redacted form only if the identification of the individual through personal information contained in the report

“could adversely affect a commercial business”.

I have no problem with people standing up and saying that there is a fault, provided that they are not held to account if it affects their business, but they should not be frightened of doing so.

Timescales are covered by amendments 31, 34 to 36, 38, 145 and 146. Amendment 34 would enforce a maximum 28-day limit on the reporter’s provision of additional information regarding the alleged breach. That just means that it would not go on for ever. Amendment 34 would mean that the commissioner, within 28 days of deciding to investigate the breach, must send a copy of the report to—and request a response from—the person alleged to have committed the breach. That seems perfectly sensible to me.

Amendment 35 would enforce a maximum period of six weeks for the person alleged to have committed the breach to respond to the report that they are mentioned in.

Amendment 36 would impose on the commissioner a maximum timescale of 28 days, within which they must send a copy of the report to—and request a response from—the person alleged to have committed the breach.

Amendment 145 seeks to clarify that a commissioner must send a copy of the report and ask for a response

“at the same time as giving notice”

in writing to the person who has submitted the report that they have decided to investigate the breach. That would keep everyone informed.

Amendment 146 seeks to clarify that the commissioner’s request for a response on the breach by the person alleged to have committed it “must be reasonable” and that the period within which the response is requested

“must not exceed 6 weeks”.

Amendment 38 would provide that

“the period within which those steps must be taken”

to remedy a breach of the management plan must

“be reasonable in all the circumstances”.

I cannot understand why members do not like the word “reasonable”.

There is definitely something in that. Conservative members are trying to help the Government to prevent ministers from getting themselves in a pickle. We tried to do that when it came to the deposit return scheme.

Let us turn to amendment 37, which seeks to reduce the fine for a breach of the management plan from £40,000 to £20,000. Amendment 149 would oblige the commissioner to publish guidance on the scale of the enforcement of fines within six months of the act gaining royal assent. We are going to talk about who can be a commissioner. At the moment, the Government seems to discriminate against landowners—but we will come to that in due course.

Members: Oh!

I thank the cabinet secretary for giving way. I think that you will find that my amendment gave the option for you to amend the chapter, should it so require. The principle is to have an online database of land management plans. You could accept my amendment, if you were being generous, and then amend it by regulation afterwards, as you are doing with so many other parts of the bill.

I am interested in the points raised in Mark Ruskell’s amendments in relation to the Scottish outdoor access code. As he will well know, I have been trying to get that code reviewed for the past five years, which the Government has steadfastly refused to do—on what basis, I do not know. My view is that it is 20 years old and it probably needs updating. I am not sure that I could have supported Mark Ruskell’s amendments, if he had decided to move them, so I am glad that he is not going to.

In relation to Mr Torrance’s amendment 232, what slightly concerns me is how one asserts a right of access. Some rights of access will be asserted because they have been taken with consent, with payment, or as a fact of law. I am not sure whether those grounds would still stand under his amendment, but I understand what he is trying to do. Bearing in mind what the local MSPs are saying, I will follow their lead on whether it is a good one, once we have heard from the cabinet secretary. However, I am worried that amendment 232 is a bit wide ranging and does not define where access lies and how one goes about asserting rights.