Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I want to come back to threatened species status, cabinet secretary. You described the need for a bit more latitude in the way that that is interpreted. In your letter to the committee you said that that could be put in place, either in the explanatory notes to the bill or in the bill itself. Would you consider an amendment in that regard, perhaps one that covers species that are in decline as well as those that are threatened?

I want to return to the subject of offshore wind. I think that the Government has said that its offshore wind ambitions are not achievable in the current system. I might have asked you a similar question when you gave evidence to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee on the legislative consent memorandum for the United Kingdom Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which will give the Scottish ministers some flexibility in relation to powers under the Electricity Act 1989.

I have a similar question on the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. How will you use the powers under part 2 of the bill to provide the flexibility that is needed, which is particularly important for offshore wind transmission infrastructure? I think that that is the point that was made in relation to the UK bill. When you spoke about the UK bill at the NZET Committee, I think that you said that the intention would not be to change the environmental assessment regime, although I might have picked that up wrongly.

I think that that has been stated by the Government, in the context of the current system.

It has been put to us that section 8 powers were not used in the past because using them would require a high burden of proof, which could be challenged through judicial review. For many years, there has been the suspicion that there has been an inability to issue a robust section 8 notice in a way that would not be legally challenged on the basis of the evidence. Do you think that the bill changes that, particularly with the new grounds for nature restoration? Does that provide more legal certainty now?

I was wondering whether there is precedent for having an environmental regulator as an adviser when it ultimately holds power over regulation. Is that something that NatureScot is already doing?

Ms Wilson described NatureScot as having a wider advisory role, but this is quite specific. It is about advising in a particular area on deer management plans, while also having a regulatory function. Is there precedent for how NatureScot and other environmental regulators have managed those two responsibilities? How have they dealt with the perception that there might be a conflict of interest?