Seòmar agus comataidhean

Do you expect a lot of that to be spelled out in the financial memorandum? I am conscious that local authorities and a range of partner public bodies will get annual budgets from the Parliament, and Government might say, “That is on a year-to-year basis. The financial memorandum concerns the transition, but the annual budgets for how we resource the work adequately are just that: annual budgets.” What are your views on that?

Good morning, and thank you for supporting our evidence session this morning.

I want to ask about land management plans, but can I ask you not to talk yet about compliance, enforcement, monitoring, reporting or the size of holdings, as I will ask questions about those things later.

First, and principally for large holdings that will be required to produce a land management plan, do the provisions adequately articulate meaningful extensive community engagement, including using the land rights and responsibilities statement? I am not sure who is best placed to answer that.

That is helpful. There is a balance to be struck, of course, Mr Russell, which I think is the point that you are making. The bill does not include cumulative holdings. A landowner could have four concerns each of 2,000 hectares—a massive operation that would not be covered by this bill. Should the bill consider cumulative holdings, Mr Russell?

I am sorry to focus on you, Emma, but this is a line of questioning that I was hoping to pursue. Land management plans would have to take cognisance of the land rights and responsibilities statement, but they would not have to follow it. I understand that they will have to have regard for the land rights and responsibilities statement, but that it has no statutory underpinning and will be voluntary. What is your view on that? If any of the other witnesses have different views, it would be good to get them on the record, too.

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?