Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

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 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.

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 think that we are all wound up enough right now.