Seòmar agus comataidhean

Cabinet secretary, I hope that you can give further clarity in relation to amendment 31. I am pleased to work with you ahead of stage 3 to make sure that it is drafted accurately and appropriately, but I do not think that my amendment, which seeks to make it easier to access a land management plan that the Parliament has so far agreed should be accessible anyway, will have any implications for commercial sensitivity whatsoever. The amendment does not require additional information to be published in the plan; it simply requires that the plan is published in an accessible way. I am still not sure where commercial confidentiality or sensitivity comes in with this amendment.

I was not going to bother but I shall now, Mr Ruskell.

Will the member give way?

I did.

You said that everyone expects there to be repeated fines. For me, that is not the best starting point. The £40,000 maximum fine is a backstop for non-compliance, not a first course of action. It may be that there are repeated fines—we will establish that through the passage of time—but do you agree that the aim is that there should be a positive, correct, initial relationship with the new commissioner, in much the same way as the tenant farming commissioner has built up an excellent relationship with everyone that he has responsibility for in relation to regulations? If we get that right at the outset, although we might end up having fines for some very large businesses and large landholdings, that positive relationship will mean that, for many, fines do not have to be regular. To say that fines have to be regular sets the wrong tone for the relationship that we are trying to build with landowners in Scotland.

If I understand—

I am sure that Tim Eagle followed very closely the evidence that we received at stage 1. Does he recognise that large landowners told us that, by and large, all the things that are to be contained in the plans are best practice and are taking place anyway? If that is true, where is the additional cost?

Will the member take an intervention?

I thank Mr Eagle for giving way. I point out that the spa activities in Deeside are much more like what I would dream about than what you apparently dream about, but we will leave that hanging.

Some of your amendments to part 1 are simple deletions, but some of them would have amended part 1, on the basis that you thought that they would improve it. Had those amendments been agreed to—not the deletions but the other amendments—would you still move your amendments to delete part 1 in its entirety?

I am trying to understand whether your presence at the committee last week and today, which is always very welcome, is destructive or constructive. Would you ever have agreed to part 1 in any shape, size or form?

I start by saying the policy intent behind these amendments followed from not just the very strong committee evidence that we had at stage 1 but discussions with the Scottish Government and Community Land Scotland. I thank the Scottish Government for working with me—I acknowledge the expertise that its bill team brought to the drafting of this suite of amendments, and I thank them for their efforts. I absolutely agreed with the policy intent, and our discussions around that were quite clear.

During our stage 1 scrutiny, several committee members felt that the maximum penalty of £5,000 for non-compliance in relation to land management plans was woefully insufficient, and my purpose in lodging these amendments is, therefore, to strengthen the provisions. It is important that fines that are imposed for breaches are meaningful and that the cost of a fine is not a cheaper alternative to fulfilling the obligations under the bill. For instance, the business and regulatory impact assessment suggested that producing a land management plan could cost up to £15,000. I note that that figure was at the higher end of the modelling that was done. Moreover, the evidence that we got from various witnesses was very confused about how much land management plans would cost to produce. Some landowners said that they did that work already, but they did not call it a land management plan, while others thought that it would be a huge cost to them. The evidence that we heard from the landowners on that was, I thought, unclear.

In any case, any maximum fine must be suitable and appropriate to ensure that there is no incentive to simply not produce a land management plan or comply with the provisions. As a result, I have lodged amendment 89, which, as Mr Eagle indicated in his contribution, seeks to increase the maximum fine that the land and communities commissioner can impose from £5,000 to £40,000. In doing so, I stress that that will be the maximum element of any fine. Indeed, the land and communities commissioner can enter into discussions with or issue compliance notices to landowners where appropriate, instead of rushing to fine them for non-compliance.

I wanted to lodge this suite of amendments, because, as I made clear during my questioning at stage 1, I am keen to see a constructive relationship between the new land and communities commissioner and landowners. That is vital; indeed, Tim Eagle himself has lodged amendments to reinforce the collaborative approach that is required. Earlier, the convener made an interesting point about ensuring affordability for some landowners, and I would welcome the discussions on the matter that might take place with the cabinet secretary following stage 2.

Amendment 107 seeks to allow ministers to adjust a fine through secondary legislation. That will be important to prevent the value of fines being eroded by inflation, for example, and it is important to point out that an affirmative instrument will be required in order to make that change, which will ensure robust parliamentary scrutiny.

Amendments 70, 83, 91 and 97 to 100 will together allow the land and communities commissioner to serve enforcement notices when original breaches have not been remedied. If those enforcement notices are not complied with, the commissioner can introduce a further fine with the same maximum level as the original fines—that is a may, not a must.

I appreciate the points that Mr Ruskell made about amendment 97A, but I said earlier that this is about collaboration between the land and communities commissioner and landowners, and giving the commissioner the flexibility that they require to develop those relationships, promote best practice and work collegiately. Constraining that flexibility by saying that they must implement another fine for non-compliance would not be in that spirit. That is why I do not support “must” as opposed to “may” and, therefore, do not support amendment 97A. In that way, continued non-compliance might lead to multiple fines and further strengthen the enforcement and compliance regime.

Together, the amendments will support a robust enforcement regime to deter poor behaviour. In closing—