Seòmar agus comataidhean

I asked you not to go there because I am definitely going to go there. I just wanted to break the questions up a bit.

The Land Commission initially considered that land areas from 1,000 hectares up to about 3,000 hectares should be within the scope of land management plans—and beyond 3,000 hectares of course—but the Government has opted for 3,000 hectares.

Convener, can I check that people can still hear me? My screen has gone blank.

I hope not, convener, because this is my line of questioning.

So, 3,000 hectares is 30 million square metres, which is 5,000 football pitches. Should the scope not be 1,000 hectares? Are there any concerns that the Government has gone too high? Some suggested going as low as 500 hectares and the Land Commission thought maybe 1,000 hectares but the Government has gone for 3,000 hectares. What does the Land Commission think about that?

Will you take a position on it?

Okay. That is very helpful.

I have a very general question that might be more about part 2 of the bill. In response to Jackie Dunbar’s question about patterns of land ownership in the country, Mr Russell referred us to Andy Wightman’s 2024 update to “Who Owns Scotland”.

More generally, what will a successful bill look like in 10 years’ time in relation to the pattern of land ownership in Scotland? Should we still expect to see the same 20 huge companies having the same extremely dense levels of ownership in the country? Should we see land being owned by much smaller concerns? What will success look like in that regard? How can we monitor the impact on tenants and those with smallholdings? Data can be used to show anything. What we are interested in is the impact on the ground and whether the bill improves the quality of experience for individual leaseholders and for communities. What does success look like?

Can I push you on that, Mr Russell? Cross-compliance is not direct compliance. Some family concerns can be very large companies and they might consider it to be cheaper to just pay £5,000 rather than comply fully, which is burdensome.

Could we increase the fine threshold? Could we look at penalties based on turnover of the business?

Thank you.

That is very helpful. I am sure that the committee would welcome being kept updated if there is any detrimental impact. It is clear that the organisation is changing to adapt to additional pressures and financial realities.

Let us look at the five regulatory priorities that have been set by OSCR for 2024 through to 2026. They look pretty clear—dare I say obvious?—in some respects. How were they determined? What progress has been made on the priorities that you have set since their introduction?

Because of time constraints, I will perhaps leave that hanging.

I will ask a final question. [Interruption.] I do not think that I have had much time at all, convener, but I will be brief.

Do senior officers in OSCR analyse the data and make recommendations to the chair and the board on the priorities that are set, or do they give the chair and board options? I am trying to gather how dynamic and vibrant the board is at holding senior management to account in the priorities that it sets.