Chamber and committees

I am new to this, Hamish, and you are not, and I am trying to scrutinise the bill. Are there examples where that happens elsewhere in the world and has the Land Commission thought about what a model in Scotland could look like?

I hope you will not mind me pushing you a bit further, Mr Russell, but I did not ask about cross-compliance. I understand cross-compliance. I asked about direct compliance and whether for some businesses, a £5,000 fine just would not cut it. Is it the view of the Land Commission that the £5,000 fine should be reviewed?

That is helpful. Convener, you will be relieved to hear this is my final question—I know that other members need to get in and that you want to move on the lines of questioning.

Some concerns have been raised about the reporting process and it has been suggested that we should widen the scope of who can report and that investigations should be more robust. I must admit that I am not across the detail of this particular area, but I would be very keen to have witnesses to put on record their thoughts to better inform our consideration of this legislation.

That is helpful.

I move on to penalties for non-compliance. Mr Russell said at the start that it is nice to have land management plans. Hopefully landowners will have consulted meaningfully and effectively with communities and other relevant interested groups so that the plan is sensible, practical and sustainable for the land, the people on it and all those who benefit from that land. However, if a plan is not implemented in practice, it is irrelevant. I understand that there are fines of up to £5,000 for not producing a plan but that, within the bill, there is no consequence for non-compliance. Is that your understanding, Mr Russell? Do we have to look at that again?

Engagement is the crux of the question, along with time constraints. What will be the requirements for community engagement under the legislation? If a landowner has 3,000 hectares, any community directly impacted by that ownership should have an absolute right within the land management plan to be meaningfully consulted. There should be cognisance of that and steps should be taken to address their concerns and aspirations. How will the bill, and the management plans—if done properly—achieve that?

My question is inspired by your question, convener, about potential financial burdens on the Land Commission and compromising other areas of what it does. Right now, in relation to those with the broadest shoulders paying, what about the largest landowners or large management companies? Gresham House, for example, owned no land in Scotland in 2012 and currently has 53,000 hectares. We see a direction of travel there. Is there any levy on those largest landowners or land management companies in relation to regulatory functions and is there an opportunity to do that in a proportionate and responsible way?

I asked you not to go there because I am definitely going to go there. I just wanted to break the questions up a bit.

The Land Commission initially considered that land areas from 1,000 hectares up to about 3,000 hectares should be within the scope of land management plans—and beyond 3,000 hectares of course—but the Government has opted for 3,000 hectares.

Convener, can I check that people can still hear me? My screen has gone blank.

I hope not, convener, because this is my line of questioning.

So, 3,000 hectares is 30 million square metres, which is 5,000 football pitches. Should the scope not be 1,000 hectares? Are there any concerns that the Government has gone too high? Some suggested going as low as 500 hectares and the Land Commission thought maybe 1,000 hectares but the Government has gone for 3,000 hectares. What does the Land Commission think about that?

Will you take a position on it?

Okay. That is very helpful.