Chamber and committees

That is quite helpful. I do not want to misinterpret what you are saying. Rather than there being a statutory duty on the landowner to deliver everything in the land management plan, you seem to be saying that, if reasonable, good-faith efforts have not been made to deliver the contents of such a plan, that should be a compliance issue. Have I interpreted that correctly?

I have a final question and will go to Gemma Cooper first. If you have any reflections on my previous question, please feel free to share them, Gemma.

Who reports compliance issues or breaches of the land management plan? The bill as it stands is relatively restrictive, in that only certain groups are able to do that. Of course, there is a balance to be struck between the obvious bodies that could report on a potential breach or lack of compliance versus what could be malicious reporting.

I will not come back in after this, convener.

Irrespective of who can or cannot report on compliance or on breaches, should the commissioner be able to undertake proactive work on a small scale in order to see what is happening with land management plans, so that we are not reliant on issues being reported?

Thank you for those comments. It might sound as if I am pushing one specific compliance fine, but I refer back to Sarah-Jane Laing’s initial positive comments on the power of a land management plan, and I associate myself with the comments of Mr Bean.

The deputy convener talked about whether compliance should relate to the terms of the land management plan or just to the production of the plan. Sarah-Jane Laing talked about the fact that it would not be a statutory obligation to adhere to every aspect of a land management plan. If it can be proven—of course, it is about how you prove it—that the landowner has not acted in good faith to attempt to implement the provisions of a plan to the best of their ability, should that be a compliance issue?

There may be and there may not—we have looked at cross-compliance previously, but it is still not clear whether there will be cross-compliance. At face value, if it costs up to £20,000 to produce a plan and the fine for not producing one is £5,000, there seems to be an incentive either to not produce a plan or to produce one that is pretty threadbare. Do you not see any case for increasing the maximum fine from £5,000?

I get that. Are there any other reflections? Sarah-Jane Laing, if Glasgow botanic gardens fitted into the required threshold 100 times, would that be reasonable? Is there a case for bringing the threshold below 3,000 hectares, given the comparison that I am drawing?

That is interesting. I need to move on, so I apologise to Gemma Cooper for not bringing her in on that point. It is interesting to hear about the idea of having a backstop of 3,000 hectares, but perhaps with a lower threshold based on other criteria. That is really interesting for members as we scrutinise the bill.

On compliance, we heard that land management plans could be positive for landowners and communities—Sarah-Jane Laing made some positive comments about that. Land management statements might be happening already in some cases, and there are real opportunities there. However, there is a debate around having a high-level strategic document versus specific localised elements and requirements. There seems to be a slight tension in relation to some of that.

Whatever we end up with, if the penalty for not producing a land management plan is a maximum of £5,000 but it costs up to £20,000 every five years to produce one, would it be easier for people to just not produce one? Do we have to look again at the fines and compliance? Fining is a last resort, but is £5,000 just too low in that context?

Would it be correct to say that that is your view, unless the landowner has not acted in good faith or made reasonable efforts to implement the terms that are in the land management plan?

I appreciate that. Witnesses have been making a big deal of the fact that the cost could be £15,000 to £20,000 but, when I mention the maximum fine, suddenly, we find that it might not cost that much to produce a land management plan. That leaves MSPs a little bit confused, but thank you for that.

Gemma Cooper, do you have any thoughts on the £5,000 maximum fine?

I have no further questions, convener.

Thank you, convener. I apologise for attending the meeting remotely. I have been following the evidence with interest. I hope that the requirement for a break after my line of questioning is not a reflection on me, but there we have it.

To return briefly to the 3,000 hectare threshold, I said last week to witnesses that that is just a number to many people—certainly to someone based in Maryhill, as I am.

Glasgow’s botanic gardens and grounds sit in my constituency—in part, anyway—and they would fit 150 times into 3,000 hectares. It would seem remarkable that, if the gardens only fitted 149 times into 3,000 hectares, they would not be required to have a land management plan. Given that comparison, which I made to make the number real, does Mr Bean have any further reflections? How much more, or how much less, than 3,000 hectares should the threshold be?