Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is fine. I know that the convener has a line of questioning in this area, so I will ask just one more question.

I was a wee bittie surprised by the concerns that were raised in some of the written evidence about the cost of developing a land management plan. I think that Mr Macleod said that a lot of responsible landowners were already getting on with doing that, without the need for legislation. I would not have thought that, if the threshold was set at 3,000 hectares, developing a land management plan would be that burdensome or that costly in the greater scheme of things. I am asking whether that is the case; I do not know. In life, it is dangerous to assume things.

Do the witnesses have any concerns about the administrative burden and the cost of developing a land management plan? It is important that the committee takes a balanced view and that we get our witnesses’ opinions on that on the record.

Your point is that doing the right thing is not burdensome.

Do you mean as part of the land management plan consultation process?

Good morning, and thank you for coming along. To work out how effective the ask and act duty might be, it is reasonable to work out what the public bodies that are listed in the bill are currently doing. It is not about what they might do under that duty, but what they are currently doing. John Mills might be best placed to talk about that. What are those bodies currently doing, and what is their current relationship with local authorities?

A lot of the points that you raised there will be asked about in later questions, so you should not think that I am ignoring the very relevant points that you made. I am trying to find out whether there are some individuals in the public bodies that are listed who already ask and act where they can. Is this about spreading good practice in a consistent way across all public bodies and across the country, or is this a departure from what currently happens with best practice?

I have a follow-up question for you, Annika. I will then bring in Maeve McGoldrick, in a second, to add to that. I apologise for not bringing everyone in, but I understand that there are time constraints.

Annika, do you think that the list of bodies in the bill needs to be added to?

That is very helpful.

Professor Fitzpatrick, you have also been very patient. I will move on to the next question, but feel free to give us your thoughts on points that have not yet been covered in previous responses.

We should put on the record that some people have said in evidence that they believe that we should not be doing any of this at the moment, but that we should resource the current system better and make it work adequately before we move on to the next thing. I will give you a little health warning in relation to how you answer that, which is that my final question will be specifically about resourcing the new system. However, for now, do you have any thoughts on the view that, instead of taking forward the proposals, we should make the current system work?

My next question is on resourcing, and it would be reasonable to come to John Mills here, given that, although there is supposed to be a statutory duty on other public bodies, we all know that local authorities will be at the centre or the hub of that. One of my colleagues will look into pathways and referrals later, so my question is about resourcing more generally.

Do you have confidence that the proposed measures will be sufficiently resourced, or that the financial memorandum accurately reflects the resources that will be required? I would caveat the question a bit by saying that, if we were going to cost everything to get the ideal system, we would never start it, as that would be overwhelming.

I am conscious that Professor Fitzpatrick spoke about the gradual implementation of what we put in place for priority need. Do we have to be realistic, gradually implementing a better system under the new statutory duties in an incremental way, given what I suppose might be a significant financial burden on a range of public authorities?

I did not mean to take such a length of time to ask that question—I am sorry, Mr Mills—but your thoughts on that would be really helpful.

I hope that other witnesses do not mind that I am focusing on Mr Mills in relation to this point.

This will be my final question, Mr Mills, and I apologise to other witnesses whom I have not been able to bring in on this point.

Should money that comes into the system to deliver on the statutory duties go to each public body to allow them to create their own strategies, or should there be a central resource at, say, local authority level for co-producing what a new service might look like? Do you have any thoughts on that? You could write to us on that, given our time constraints.