Seòmar agus comataidhean

Okay—I think that we have done that question. Great.

I want to return to an issue that we talked about a lot in the predecessor committee when the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Bill was going through Parliament: that is ESS’s role in relation to individual cases. There is a slight difference in the way that that has landed. The Office for Environmental Protection in England has the ability to investigate individual cases, but we still do not have that in ESS’s role. You advised ESS

“that it should give further consideration to the conditions where it would be appropriate to investigate the individual circumstances of a local area”.

It sounds to me as though you are giving ESS, even within the context of the 2021 act as it stands, a bit of a nudge towards something.

Have you anything more to say about how you define that? It is an area that NGOs and communities are interested in. Part of the context is that not everybody will have an environmental issue that is replicable in other areas of Scotland. One of ESS’s first cases was to look at acoustic deterrent devices at fish farms. That was an issue from around the coast of Scotland in which various communities were concerned. However, I guess that not every community will have an issue that is replicable—it might have more of a stand-alone individual case.

I am trying to read into that comment from the Government what you would like ESS to explore and where we might end up after that strategic review.

Does that mean that there are four or five dates?

I will go back to the bill’s provisions on land management plans. How will that play out in a crofting estate—whether it is community owned or owned by an individual or a family? Can you point to good examples where land management plans are in effect already being developed or consulted on with wider crofting townships and others? Is there potential for change to reflect good practice through such plans?

Reducing the threshold to 500 hectares would bring in a lot more crofting estates. Is that correct?

I want to ask about Aarhus convention compliance. Is there any sanction for not meeting the terms of that important international agreement? The Government was not in compliance in October. I think that that was the most recent deadline that passed. What happens now, as a result? Is it just a bit embarrassing, or do you work towards some strict monitoring deadline that is enforceable through the convention? Will you explain to me how that works, because—

Do witnesses have any comments about the specific proposals for ministers to lot estates or about the process behind that?

What would you say about having a transfer test for the seller instead of a public interest test for the buyer?

So you would have preferred to have had a public interest test.

Okay—there is no fixed date, but there is a kind of work plan.

I understand that, and I presume that the right to appeal will be with the regulator, if there is an environmental issue. I am interested in a situation in which there might be a very localised case—it might be the only case in Scotland—of a pollution incident, for example. There might not be a way to adequately seek justice in that case and the case might point to the need for a change in the law, or for the regulatory body to regulate in a different way from how it currently discharges its duties. ESS might have gone through the complaints process with the regulatory body and not got anywhere, so it might think that it could look at whether the body is regulating effectively and whether there needs to be a change in the law. Is that not a difficult decision for ESS to make right now? It would still just be one case. Where is the discretion in that?