³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

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

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.

I want to return to the scale of land management plans and the threshold that is involved. Mr Ruskell’s exchange on that was helpful in pointing out that it is not always a matter of scale but about public interest and other overlapping policy considerations.

The threshold is currently set at 3,000 hectares, but, for many people, that will be just a number. For example, Glasgow’s botanic gardens and their lands are in my constituency, and those would fit 150 times into 3,000 hectares, which perhaps brings home the fact that the threshold is way too high and should be reconsidered. Evidence to the committee has suggested that the threshold could be set at 500 or 1,000 hectares. However, we must also consider whether additional burdens might be placed on what could be small businesses if we were to place such obligations on them. I get the fact that responsibilities come with owning significant holdings such as 500 or 1,000 hectares. How do we get the balance right between potentially imposing such burdens on small businesses and their taking on the responsibilities that we would like to see happen? Perhaps Jon Hollingdale would come in first on that.

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 thank all members for their patience.

Following today’s proceedings, the clerks will prepare a draft report, and the committee is invited to decide whether to consider that draft report in private at our next meeting. Do members agree to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

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.