Seòmar agus comataidhean

It seems that there is no resistance to that. It seems to be commonsense stuff, as long as it is all proportionate.

That is helpful. Over the past few evidence sessions, I have tried to paint the role of the proposed new commissioner as being more proactive, their resources permitting. Of course, Mr Carlow, that could help to drive up standards for land management plans, because there could be breaches. Although those breaches may not be wilful, it could be that expertise is still being acquired around the development and implementation of land management plans, including in community engagement. If resources permit, should sample inspections take place on a thematic basis, not with a view to identifying and prosecuting breaches but with a view to identifying weaknesses in delivery, which would help to drive up standards? Would it be helpful for the commissioner to have a proactive power to do more thematic work?

I will resist asking further questions about that, Mr Clark, because of the time pressure. Mr Carlow, do you have any reflections on the points that I made?

I will ask the same question that I asked the previous witnesses on the affordability of a good-quality land management plan. When Mr Carlow gave the forestry example, he helpfully said, “That is just good management”—that is what I have written down—in relation to engagement with communities, good stewardship of the land and the relationship in that regard. A lot of the things that we are talking about are things that a good landowner would be doing anyway, but they would be drawn together in one place, so I genuinely cannot comprehend how it would cost many tens of thousands of pounds to do something that, as nearly all the witnesses have said, good-quality landowners would be doing anyway. Something does not quite compute. Mr Carlow, what are your views on that?

That is helpful. I might come back to the anonymity question raised by Megan MacInnes in a moment, but first I will ask about the land and communities commissioner’s proactive role to investigate potential breaches.

I will stick with you, Mr Kirkwood. I have suggested to witnesses before that I would quite like the land and communities commissioner to be able to pick a random sample of land management plans and do a bit of digging, not to catch landowners out, but to see whether they are compliant. Mr Overton was talking about the Land Commission having a forum about what a good land management plan looks like and how landowners can be supported to produce them. If we are going to drive up standards and ensure best practice, the land and communities commissioner has to have more of a proactive role.

Mr Kirkwood, what are your views on the land and communities commissioner having proactive powers to investigate potential breaches? More generally, what are your thoughts on its ability to dip its toe in the water to find out what is happening out there across Scotland with land management plans?

The convener will be quite terse with me if I do not stay focused on the questions. I will bring in Mr Howard.

We have heard from some witnesses in private, because they were concerned about airing their views in public. I get that every landowner, tenant and community group is different, but we have heard some of that concern, and it is important to put that on the record.

Not everyone has had an opportunity to speak, but I will put in my final question and we can maybe mop this up. Megan MacInnes spoke about anonymity for those who complain because of the potential risk that we have heard about. Witnesses should feel free to comment on the first two questions, but perhaps Laura Hamlet has a view on anonymity.

I am absolutely willing to be corrected, but my understanding of the bill is that a report would be made to the land and communities commissioner, and the bill says what the content of that report should be and how the matter should be reported to the commissioner. There is a set process for that in the bill. As it stands, a potential breach may be reported only by a community with a registered interest in land within the terms of the land management plan, Historic Environment Scotland, a local authority within whose area the land sits, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency or NatureScot. We can look separately at whether the set process is appropriate, but should the list of those who may report or allege a potential breach be extended to include community councils, enterprise agencies, national park authorities and the Crofting Commission?

If you want to digest that question and think about it, that is fine. You do not need to comment now, but you have an opportunity to say what your gut tells you about extending the list in that way.

That is helpful. You have moved on to where I was going to take the line of questioning. Before we come to that, however, do any of our other witnesses have a different view on adding the four organisations? If so, it would be good to get that on the record.

I do not have any further questions. Is there anything regarding this area that the witnesses feel that they should have put on the record but have not been able to?

I see not. Thank you, convener.