Chamber and committees

No, I do not think so. I am trying to understand why a landowner who has given a commitment in a land management plan should not be responsible for implementing the bits that they are responsible for, if there has not been a material change, such as a change in subsidy for farming.

So, if the detail that is set out in the land management plan is not an obligation, what is the purpose of it?

I understand that. The point that I am making is that, if you have a plan for the next 10 or 15 years and you are implementing it, the objectives that it is meant to achieve are obligations for which the incoming owner would be responsible.

But we should hold them responsible for the bits that are in their gift, should we not?

David Bean, would you like to comment?

Yes, the threshold of 3,000 hectares.

We have had representation to say that it should be 1,000 or 500 hectares.

David, given that you do not have a specific view on what the threshold should be, are you open to its being reduced?

Thanks.

I turn to what is proposed in the bill around the transfer test and the way in which the bill intends it to be applied to the seller prior to a sale being undertaken. Do you think that what the Government proposes in the bill is the right way to go about that? My question is for David Bean.

Gemma Cooper, would the inclusion of a public interest test in the bill help to address the concerns of your members? I suspect that it would not, but I will ask the question anyway.