Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am asking you specifically whether that is your experience of the process. I am not asking you for your opinion—I am asking whether, as a fact, that is your experience.

Good morning. I turn to the call-in procedure and the new pre-application process that is envisaged under the new regulations. How do you feel the existing call-in procedure for CAR has operated? What has not worked well under the existing procedure and resulted in the need to change it?

Yes, but what is your opinion on how the processes have operated?

Thank you.

Turning to the changes in the rules on good husbandry and good estate management, I note that, in his contribution, Mr Oates referred to the issue of sustainability and regenerative practices and how they can be quite difficult to define. The bill changes the rules in that respect, with specific reference to “sustainable and regenerative agriculture”. Do you think that the right approach has been taken to changing those rules? Could the provision be further improved to give greater clarity?

That is helpful. I am not sure whether Martin Hall was referring to this in his comments, but the bill as drafted does not make provision in relation to charging for tenants’ improvements. Should the bill contain such a provision, given that it is in the original 1991 act?

How long will the consultation last for and when will the finalised document be published?

I am not really asking you about the due process that you presently follow as a regulator. The claim in the consultation is that the change is needed because the existing procedure

“results in delays, rarely results in a change of outcome, and is of limited utility”.

That is a direct quote from the consultation document and the findings of the review. Does that match your experience as the regulator, with responsibility for implementing the call-in procedure? I find it quite hard to believe that, as the regulator, you have no view on your experience of using the call-in procedure. It is quite a simple question; it is not a trick. To be very clear, I am asking you whether what is reflected in the document accurately reflects your experience.

So you do not have an opinion on the call-in procedure.

Regarding the existing system, the consultation document states that, to judge from practical experience,

“the procedure ... rarely results in a change of outcome”

but often

“results in delays”,

with very little change. Is that an accurate reflection of your experience, as the regulator, of how the call-in procedure under CAR operates?

No. I will hand back to you, convener.

So, as the regulator, you have no view on whether the call-in procedure operates well or whether what is set out in the document is correct. You have no idea, as the regulator.