Seòmar agus comataidhean

The recommendation is not to fetter the new commissioner’s powers but to require them to consult the other commissioners on recommendations and on investigations that they undertake.

The policy memorandum suggests that the cost of a land management plan is likely to be around £20,000, although the committee has had some evidence to suggest that it could be as high as £70,000. Can you give us an insight into how you arrived at the figure of £20,000 for a land management plan and your thinking about the potential for land management plans to be significantly more expensive than what has been set out in the policy document?

That is helpful. To help me to understand that further, is the priority to get greater diversity of ownership on large-scale landholdings, or is it about helping to support diversification for communities that may have an interest in areas of land that they are unable to access at present?

I will pick up on the theme of the diversification of land ownership. It has been a long-standing policy intention to see greater diversification of land ownership in Scotland. Kevin Stewart set out clearly how land continues to be concentrated in the hands of very few owners. From my perspective, it would be helpful to understand what “good” looks like. What would good diversification of land ownership in Scotland look like, compared with what we have at present? How would that be monitored post implementation of the bill over the course of, let us say, the next five or 10 years to see whether it is making progress?

You mentioned the duration of land management plans. As it stands, the bill envisages them being reviewed and, if necessary, revised every five years. Some of the evidence that the committee has heard suggests that five years is too short a timeframe in relation to managing land. I am told that forestry plans, for example, are often for 20 or 30 years. I suppose that part of the challenge is whether five years is an appropriate timeframe in which to look at revising a management plan and incurring further costs when that might not be realistic. Are you open to the idea of increasing that timeframe for revising land management plans?

I am conscious that, if you are open to that, it becomes more difficult. The longer the period during which a plan is due to be implemented, the more difficult it is to be specific, because circumstances change. If you were minded to look at extending the revising period, is there a need to balance how specific a land management plan can be over a longer period of time?

If we get to the point where someone is the third-largest landowner in the country but does not have a land management plan to their name, while someone who happens to have one piece of land that is just over the threshold has to go to the extent of having a full land management plan, there will be a real inequity to that. That needs to be addressed.

Okay. Thanks.

In your view, the transfer test is a public interest test. It is not a public interest test that applies at the point of acquisition of the land, however. Why is that the case?

Can you think of any reasons why you would not incorporate the commission’s recommendations with regard to how the commissioner operates?

Okay. Thanks.