Chamber and committees

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for supporting our evidence taking on the bill. I will start with large-scale landholdings and land management plans. Last week, I noted to the Scottish Land Commission that its recommendation was for land management plans to start at 1,000 hectares, with 3,000 hectares being at the upper end of where it might start. The Scottish Government has gone for 3,000 hectares. As a city boy, I do not really know what a hectare is, but 3,000 hectares is 30 million square metres, which seems quite big: several thousand football pitches—Euro 2024 is on at the moment. Is 3,000 hectares maybe a wee bit high for starting with land management plans? I would like an initial view from each witness.

Thank you. My question was just to get on record an initial viewpoint from witnesses. We will move on to other related questions.

To a lot of people who are watching this session, 3,000 hectares will just be a random number; 4,000 or 5,000 football pitches is a meaningful amount, and 30 million square metres signifies a lot to people.

I am not even saying what my view is, Mr Macleod—it is just a wee starter for 10, if you like. Is it too high, too low or about right?

Likewise—that is why I am trying to elicit evidence from people with expertise in order to work out how I feel about it.

Does Gail Watt want to come in?

So there is consistency in that respect.

Do you think that it provides a strong enough incentive to comply? Are there any affordability concerns?

I think that we have had written and other evidence on that, so we have a spectrum of evidence in that regard.

We heard from the Land Commission about the possibility of cross-compliance, which I have mentioned. In that respect, we might not just be talking about £5,000, but, for the sake of precision, I want to read out the question that I have in front of me.

The consultation on the bill proposed that the outcome of any investigation into a breach could be taken into account in any subsequent public interest test and that additional conditions could be attached to the receipt of public funds, such as registration in the land register and, if in receipt of subsidies, registration and liability for UK or European Union tax. However, none of those proposals has been brought forward in the bill.

I am now going to roll a couple of questions together, convener, given the time constraints. First, why do you think those proposals have not been included, and would there be any legal difficulties in doing so? Secondly, would those proposals provide a greater range of remedies to ensure compliance? Last week, we heard that cross-compliance penalties could be a lot more substantial than £5,000.

I know that I have thrown a lot of things together there. Mr Macleod, if you would like to comment first, that would be really helpful.

Does Mr Colquhoun have anything to add?

That is fine. We are scrutinising the bill, but I am not going to force you to answer something that you are not in a position to answer.

Is Gail Watt in a similar position?