Chamber and committees

Is the timeline of around five years for the land management plan correct, or should the period of time be longer?

That is helpful—thank you.

If obligations were set out in a land management plan over a longer period of time—let us say 10 years—should the new owner of the land carry forward those obligations if the land is sold within that period of time?

I understand that, but, for those things that are not changed, do you think that they should be held responsible for implementing them, if they are responsible for doing so?

I take a simple approach to things such as plans: somebody has to be responsible for their implementation. If parts of a plan are not implemented, who is responsible for that? Who is responsible for implementing the bits that are being taken forward? I am trying to understand your view. If a land management plan containing clear obligations is set out and the land manager consults on it, spends £15,000 on it and says that he will take it forward but does not bother doing so, who should be responsible for that?

I understand that material changes might come along that result in a need to have a variation to the plan, but, for areas where that does not happen, who should be responsible? Why should the landowner not be responsible for implementing the things that they set out in their plan?

I am not talking about areas where there is a clear material change. In areas where there is a clear obligation, and landowners have given a commitment to implement measures, why should they not be responsible for implementing them?

My final question is on the fact that it is proposed that the land management plan does not include aggregated corporate holdings. Do you think that it should be extended to include aggregated corporate holdings?

Would it be?

The Scottish Land Commission originally proposed that there should be an explicit public interest test in the bill. Would you prefer the approach of having that test as opposed to having the transfer test, as is currently in the bill?

My final question is on the use of EORs. If the UK Government is keen on a UK-wide regime for the use of EORs, what scope is there for ministers to resist that and prevent it from happening in Scotland? Could you take a completely different approach? That goes back to my previous question. If the Scottish Government does not take the approach that the UK Government wants, the UK Government could ultimately decide to overrule the way in which regulations are being exercised. Is that correct?