Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is helpful. Before I come to Dr Doble, I might layer my second question on top of that, because the convener is conscious of time constraints.

I think that Dr Doble said that 2,025 landowners would come into the gamut if the threshold were to be 500 hectares as opposed to 420 landowners if the threshold is 3,000 hectares. That would be an additional 1,545 landowners. However, he also anticipated that many of those would have land management plans of a sort anyway. Indeed, he would expect them to do so as responsible landowners. Dr Doble, will you answer the same question that I put to Jon Hollingdale? Also, if, for instance, the owner of 1,000 hectares of land did not have a land management plan, would that be a risk factor? Would that concern you in the first place?

I am pretty sure that we will return to that later in the evidence session. Linda Gillespie, do you have any reflections on the two questions that I have asked?

With caveats.

I am sure that we will return to that. You mentioned proportionality. We will perhaps return to ensuring that the framework for alleged breaches in enforcement compliance is proportionate. There is a limited framework in that regard. In the bill, the maximum fine for non-compliance is £5,000, and it refers to, but is not explicit about, the potential cross-compliance issues. Are you content that £5,000 is enough? I imagine that it will cost a lot more than £5,000 to produce a land management plan in the first place. Have we got that framework right? Jon Hollingdale, will you comment on that?

I apologise, convener. I was just running through the line of questioning that we had agreed.

Clearly, the list of those who can report breaches is, as Jon Hollingdale has said, relatively narrow. In that case, can we look in the round at whether the current compliance framework is adequate? Perhaps either Linda Gillespie or Josh Doble will comment on that and, indeed, on whether they agree with Jon Hollingdale’s comment that the list of those who can report non-compliance is too restrictive and narrow.

That is helpful. I saw Josh Doble nodding as you made that comment. Do you want to add anything, Dr Doble?

I cannot see who wishes to intervene, but I am content for you to take an intervention, cabinet secretary.

It is good to have you here. I think that this is the first time that I have sat on a committee with you, and I am looking forward to it.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of a Scottish statutory instrument. As the instrument has been laid under the affirmative procedure, it can come into force only if the Parliament approves it.

I welcome to the meeting Shirley-Anne Somerville, Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, and the following Scottish Government officials: Owen Allen, team leader, winter heating benefits and welfare fund; Julie McKinney, head of social security strategy, welfare fund and winter benefits; and Stephanie Virlogeux, lawyer, legal department. I thank all of you for joining us today.

Following this evidence-taking session, the committee will be invited under agenda item 3 to consider the motion to recommend approval of the instrument. I remind everyone that Scottish Government officials can speak under this item but not in the debate that follows.

Before I invite the cabinet secretary to make a short opening statement, I also remind members—indeed, everyone—that legal proceedings on winter fuel payments are active. Therefore, under the Parliament’s sub judice rule, members should avoid making any statement about the subject matter of those proceedings, although I should say that the rule does not restrict consideration of legislation. Members and witnesses should therefore focus their remarks on the regulations—specifically the regulations that we are considering today—and avoid straying into wider matters that relate to the legal proceedings.

I invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement.

Good morning, and welcome to the 28th meeting in 2024 of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. We have received apologies this morning from our convener Collette Stevenson, so I am afraid that you are stuck with me as deputy convener.

I apologise for not being in the room this morning. Had I anticipated that I would be required to convene, I would have been there. No discourtesy was intended. David Torrance, who is the Scottish National Party substitute member on the committee, might or might not appear this morning.

Agenda item 1 is a declaration of interests. I welcome to the committee Liz Smith, who replaces Roz McCall—I thank Roz for her valued contribution to the committee. Liz, as you are a new committee member, I must ask whether you have any relevant interests that you wish to declare.