���˿���

If the convener is happy, I am happy to take another intervention.

I will not take long, but I want to come back on a couple of wee points. Monica Lennon said that there was a contradiction in my position. I do not think that there is a contradiction in what I am saying. I am not the cabinet secretary—although, in my dreams, I could be. I cannot believe that the Scottish Parliament could not have found another way of putting in place a law that would have targeted those who do not do what the cabinet secretary is seeking to ensure that they do, which is to implement a land management plan.

More often than not, I see the Government imposing an ever-greater administrative burden—an example of that is the whole-farm plans in agriculture. That is putting pressure on rural businesses, which they do not need at this time.

Mark Ruskell asked how much more difficult it would be to bring together all the plans that are already produced. Estate offices and agricultural businesses—which might simply have a desk in a shed—are not quiet places. They are already busy. It will be burdensome to pull the information together and to get it out there. The community engagement part of the process will definitely be burdensome.

I appreciate that interesting point. My understanding of being in opposition is that I am here to scrutinise and question the Government. That seems fair. The cabinet secretary has a wealth of advisers behind her who support her in creating and introducing a piece of legislation but, to be honest, I do not have that—I have a couple of people who help me to do this.

The point that you raised related to an early discussion that I had with my colleagues about how we could have a completely different proposal for the bill that would address some of the issues that I have raised, but it became apparent that we just did not have the time or ability to bring forward that proposal. I am now trying to question and scrutinise the Government, and I am saying, “I don’t think what you are proposing here will work.” I am happy to say that on record here; I already said it at stage 1, and I will say it again at stage 3.

To an extent, my hope for rural Scotland, which I think we all agree we are passionate about, is that the bill will work, but I do not think that it will. I think that it will be burdensome, and I do not think that it will improve the good relationships that are already out there.

I thought that this discussion would be slightly quicker than it has been, convener.

Most of the amendments in this group relate to fines and periods of time with regard to the enforcement of community engagement obligations. Amendment 407 considers the commissioner’s decision to investigate; as drafted, the commissioner is able to investigate an alleged breach that is reported to them. If the commissioner is not satisfied that the report of the breach is enough to constitute an investigation, they can request more information to be provided by the end of a period that they have specified.

Amendment 407 seeks to replace that undefined period with a set period of 90 days. As landowners, particularly farmers, need to have clarity and assurances with regard to any deadlines that are set forth by the Scottish Government, it is important that that period be specified in the bill.

Amendment 82 seeks to reduce the level of a fine. I do not favour the stick approach. As the bill is drafted, the commissioner can impose a fine no greater than £1,000 on someone who does not provide information as requested by them. I believe that that is too high, and instead I have suggested a maximum of no more than £500.

I believe that I heard the cabinet secretary say that she supported amendments 408 to 410, 414 and 415, and I thank her very much for that. The bill sets out the conditions for when the commissioner can impose a fine for a breach of an obligation, with the individual

“given an opportunity to make an agreement with the Commissioner”.

My amendment changes the wording from “make” to “reach” an agreement, because I believe that, just because an agreement has not been made, that does not mean that the willingness to reach an agreement is not there, and it should be clear that parties will be penalised only if they do not actively participate with the process.

The bill currently allows the commissioner to judge it not appropriate to give the person who committed a breach the opportunity to remedy it, which is one of the conditions that will allow them to impose a fine. Amendment 411 seeks to remove that part. I believe that everyone should be given the opportunity to explain and engage, and previous misdemeanours should not be used as a reason why a party cannot be given the opportunity to remedy a potential breach.

My amendment 90 also seeks to reduce the level of fines. As drafted, the bill allows the commissioner to impose a fine on someone for breaching their obligations, with the maximum amount that can be imposed currently standing at £5,000. I believe that that is far too high, given that farmers who will come into the bill’s scope are often cash poor, and the figure should be limited to £500.

I do not feel that I could support Bob Doris's amendments 83, 89, 91 and 97 to 100, which impose fines of up to £40,000. That is a massive fine, and it could bankrupt farmers and landowners who might fall foul of these provisions. I would be interested to know how the member can justify such a very large sum.

I fully accept that point, but, although that gives flexibility to Government and public bodies to respond, the problem for practitioners on the ground is that they will then be uncertain about what could happen in any given situation. There is no way you can ever set everything out in a bill, but that takes us back to the point about relationships. Stakeholders and businesses must be clear about what NatureScot’s intentions might be. Does that make sense?

Excellent—that was going to be my follow-up question. I am not necessarily expecting you to be able to give a comment on that right now, because the bill was only introduced on Monday, but I presumed that you might have had conversations in the background. The point is that we have been hearing that some public bodies need a bit more detail about what exactly you are looking for them to do. That could be in the bill. You said that you would take the point away. Will you give a commitment to write to the committee to let us know what your thoughts are on that, so that we can understand your position?

Is this the right time for me to ask my question? [Laughter.]

If that is the case, would you give consideration to an amendment at stage 2 that would allow for a de-escalation to a control agreement from a control scheme if the land was sold to a new owner who—taking the goodwill approach that we have talked about this morning—wanted to work with NatureScot?

There is no procedure for that in the bill, is there? However, you could introduce something that says that, after a certain amount of time—

Your advice is that people should make sure that they are carrying out deer management, so that they will not be selling their estate with a control scheme in place.