Seòmar agus comataidhean

Andy, I do not know if you were leaning forward to comment on the compensation issue and the question whether there could be a huge bill if lotting was done in a certain way.

Thank you, convener. I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I own part of a wild salmon fishery. I should also point out that I managed fisheries on the Ness and Loch Ness until 2006. My family has a strong connection with Loch Ness, having funded various expeditions to try to find the monster in the 1950s.

The petition has come about because of the work that is being proposed for pump storage in Loch Ness. I accept the importance of pump storage to our net zero demands in Scotland. It provides us with green energy and the ability to have a black start, should there be a complete failure in the national grid.

However, the pump storage at Loch Ness has proven that there are real threats to the environment that we do not yet fully understand. Pump storage will increase the temperature of the water that goes back into the loch. It will invariably require the feeder loch to have its height increased, which is what is being suggested for Loch Ness. That will damage the edge of the loch and cause problems for flora and fauna. The very edge of the loch is probably the most oxygenated area. NatureScot has objected to the proposal.

I know that it would be difficult for the committee to make a recommendation to stop everything when it comes to pump storage, because it is important to Scotland. However, we need to understand what we are doing when it comes to generating electricity.

As a member of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, I say this with a bit of trepidation, because other members might not thank me for it, but this committee might think it appropriate to refer the petition to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee so that it can undertake work to ascertain whether there is a problem. I am not volunteering that committee’s services, because I might be killed when I return to it, but it might be an idea.

I would like to, convener, if there is time.

Sorry, I am unclear what you mean when you say that the anchors had been lowered but not signed off. Did they hit the bottom of the sea? Did they work? Is it because somebody had not been in there to say that they had seen it? I do not understand that point. Could you explain that?

I know that Kevin Stewart wants to come in, but before we move on, I will add that, in many cases, land management plans will be based on the principle of people running a business—they will have developed a land management plan to dovetail into their business and meet with the community needs where possible.

If my business was farming, for example—I have already declared that I am a farmer—my land management plan, if I were required to do it, would be about farming. If I sold the land, somebody might buy it to plant trees to meet the Government’s objective to plant trees, which might not meet the community’s need. By making a land management plan enforceable for a period of time, will you distort the land value? If so, how will you compensate it? I am saying that as a surveyor as well.

We will get into non-compliance later, but I can see that interfering with the land market will come at some cost, and I am trying to figure out that cost.

Welcome back.

Agenda item 3 is an evidence session on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. We will hear from a panel of legal experts, and our focus will be on part 1 of the bill.

I am pleased to welcome Malcolm Combe, who is present in the room and is a senior lecturer in law at the University of Strathclyde. I also welcome Calum MacLeod, who joins us online and is a solicitor in practice in Inverness. Calum, we understand that you are speaking in a personal capacity as a specialist in this area of the law, and not on behalf of your firm. You have nodded, so I am sure that you agree with that.

I also welcome Rhoda Grant MSP, who is online. She will get to ask some questions at the end of the session.

I remind members of my interest in a family farming partnership in Moray, as set out in the register of members’ interests. Specifically, I declare an interest as an owner of approximately 500 acres of farmed land, of which 50 acres is woodland. I also declare that I am a tenant of approximately 500 acres in Moray under a non-agricultural tenancy, and that I have another farming tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland Act) 1991. I also declare that I occasionally take on grass lets for my cattle.

We have allowed an hour and a bit for this part of the meeting.

We will now go to questions. I get to ask the first one, which is the easy one at the beginning. Malcolm, I ask you to say a little bit about your experience in land reform, so that people are aware of it.

Thank you. We move on to Calum MacLeod.

Okay. So it is about keeping it simple.

Deputy convener, over to you.

I have a few quickfire questions to end with. Mark Ruskell said that a £5,000 fine did not seem very much, but I think that it might be a huge amount to very small farmers and landowners. Is there an argument for scaling the fine against the assets held and the size of the management plan? I am just thinking of ways around that, because £5,000 is going to be a massive amount of money to small-scale landowners, though not to some of the bigger investment companies. Would you go for scaling—yes or no?