���˿���

I will ask the same question that I asked the previous witnesses on the affordability of a good-quality land management plan. When Mr Carlow gave the forestry example, he helpfully said, “That is just good management”—that is what I have written down—in relation to engagement with communities, good stewardship of the land and the relationship in that regard. A lot of the things that we are talking about are things that a good landowner would be doing anyway, but they would be drawn together in one place, so I genuinely cannot comprehend how it would cost many tens of thousands of pounds to do something that, as nearly all the witnesses have said, good-quality landowners would be doing anyway. Something does not quite compute. Mr Carlow, what are your views on that?

That is helpful. I might come back to the anonymity question raised by Megan MacInnes in a moment, but first I will ask about the land and communities commissioner’s proactive role to investigate potential breaches.

I will stick with you, Mr Kirkwood. I have suggested to witnesses before that I would quite like the land and communities commissioner to be able to pick a random sample of land management plans and do a bit of digging, not to catch landowners out, but to see whether they are compliant. Mr Overton was talking about the Land Commission having a forum about what a good land management plan looks like and how landowners can be supported to produce them. If we are going to drive up standards and ensure best practice, the land and communities commissioner has to have more of a proactive role.

Mr Kirkwood, what are your views on the land and communities commissioner having proactive powers to investigate potential breaches? More generally, what are your thoughts on its ability to dip its toe in the water to find out what is happening out there across Scotland with land management plans?

The convener will be quite terse with me if I do not stay focused on the questions. I will bring in Mr Howard.

We have heard from some witnesses in private, because they were concerned about airing their views in public. I get that every landowner, tenant and community group is different, but we have heard some of that concern, and it is important to put that on the record.

Not everyone has had an opportunity to speak, but I will put in my final question and we can maybe mop this up. Megan MacInnes spoke about anonymity for those who complain because of the potential risk that we have heard about. Witnesses should feel free to comment on the first two questions, but perhaps Laura Hamlet has a view on anonymity.

I am absolutely willing to be corrected, but my understanding of the bill is that a report would be made to the land and communities commissioner, and the bill says what the content of that report should be and how the matter should be reported to the commissioner. There is a set process for that in the bill. As it stands, a potential breach may be reported only by a community with a registered interest in land within the terms of the land management plan, Historic Environment Scotland, a local authority within whose area the land sits, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency or NatureScot. We can look separately at whether the set process is appropriate, but should the list of those who may report or allege a potential breach be extended to include community councils, enterprise agencies, national park authorities and the Crofting Commission?

If you want to digest that question and think about it, that is fine. You do not need to comment now, but you have an opportunity to say what your gut tells you about extending the list in that way.

That is helpful. You have moved on to where I was going to take the line of questioning. Before we come to that, however, do any of our other witnesses have a different view on adding the four organisations? If so, it would be good to get that on the record.

I do not have any further questions. Is there anything regarding this area that the witnesses feel that they should have put on the record but have not been able to?

I see not. Thank you, convener.

Dannie Onn, you have not had the opportunity to comment during this section of questions. Do you want to put anything on the record in relation to the questions that I asked?

Does it give the community organisation a degree of protection?

It has come through loud and clear that there is a quite helpful tension between making sure that land management plans are thorough and making sure that they are not burdensome. We can clearly see that they have a use and, if they exist, they should of course be complied with. My question is about what we mean by complying with land management plans.

The list of those who may report a breach of a land management plan is rather narrow, and you may be aware that the Land Commission has suggested that it be extended to include community councils, enterprise agencies, national park authorities and the Crofting Commission. Would that be helpful? What is the balance of views on the panel?