Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is helpful. I apologise in advance, but I will steal that mention of “cutting holes in ... pockets” relentlessly, particularly during the budget process.

Professor Sinclair, I will address my final question to you. I previously asked about how the scrutiny process could deliver effective action to tackle poverty. Any additional comments on that would be welcome, but we are scrutinising the 2017 act. At stages 2 and 3 of that bill, significant amendments were made to it to make it about more than just cash in people’s pockets, and to address the wider view of child poverty that Mr Dickie has eloquently put on the record. For example, there were amendments on supporting local authorities to consider automated benefit payments, on the availability and affordability of childcare and on educational attainment. A variety of measures were put in the act so that we were not being simplistic about how we tackle child poverty and could make it an enduring success. Have those amendments at stages 2 and 3 helped the Scottish Government and the Parliament in their endeavour to tackle child poverty in a more rounded way?

Mr Birt, do you want to come in briefly? I am conscious that we have explored data a bit and that Ms Smith is definitely going to ask more questions on it.

I will follow up on some of the matters that Mark Ruskell was pursuing, including the narrow list of individual bodies that could make a complaint in relation to a breach under a land management plan. A possible expanded role for the land and communities commissioner, which is to be quite limited at present, was mentioned.

I will split my question into two parts. I want to think about a proactive role that the land and communities commissioner could have in an area of prevention. Would work to encourage best practice in the development of land management plans be something that the commissioner would be well placed to support, perhaps by identifying and sharing best practice where it becomes evident, and by identifying thematic areas of weaknesses in plans? As the bill stands, I am not sure that the land and communities commissioner would be empowered to do that. Would that be a positive thing?

It is worth putting on the record that I think that all committee members want to see a commissioner who works in partnership with landowners across the country and whose first approach will be not to identify breaches and look at sanctions but to build up the relationship. However, it may be beneficial for them to have that explicit power.

My final question is about whether the obligation on landowners is simply to produce a land management plan, irrespective of its quality or whether it is complied with in a meaningful way. We have heard reference to that already. For clarity, proposed new section 44B(3)(c) of the 2016 act requires the land management plan to set out how

“the owner is complying or intends to comply with ... the obligations set out in the regulations”,

and proposed new section 44E allows specific persons to allege that there has been a

“breach of an obligation imposed by regulations under section 44A”.

The fact that I am asking this question might lead to the conclusion. Is the drafting adequately clear to ensure that there are obligations to produce and to comply with a land management plan? If not, what suggestions do you have about how we can improve that section of the bill?

The reason for asking that is that we want all of you to turn Ferguson Marine around. We want you to win more orders and we want you to diversify. I am trying to get you to put on the record where Ferguson Marine is now, so that we can give confidence to people—not to the parliamentary committee that is scrutinising the matter, but to future investors and future partners, because we want you to win those contracts. Could the troubles that you have been through make you better prepared, and fitter and leaner in order to win contracts? How can you assure us that you are now getting it right?

As well as the structural need to modernise the yard, reputation and confidence have come up time and again as the biggest barriers. Clearly, the best way to rebuild reputation and confidence is to meet the new deadlines that have been set, within the cost envelopes that are forecast. Bluntly, that has been the challenge for years. On the basis that, given a fair wind, you nail this, what can others do—not Ferguson Marine—to help to rebuild reputation and confidence and to be a good friend to Ferguson Marine? We want the yard to be a success. The question is not about all the things that we know you need to do internally and that you have to be accountable for as an organisation. What can others do to assist?

Thank you.

Okay. That is clear. Mr Combe, will you comment?

Okay. I appreciate that. Calum, will you comment?

I have no further questions, convener. I stress that I do not anticipate that most landowners would produce such a plan, but when we legislate, we have to legislate for not only the best landowners but those who might be remiss in meeting their obligations in that regard. It is important to put that on the record.